Food Loss Analysis: Causes and Solutions

Case studies in the Small-scale Agriculture and Fisheries Subsectors

Methodology

May 2016

Strategic Objective 4, Output 2.2 Develop tools, methodologies and indicators for assessment

of the magnitude of food losses, in various subsectors

ii

This document is unedited and made available as presented by the FAO Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction (Save Food) Working Group. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. © FAO, 2016 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to copyright@fao.org. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org.

iii

Contents 0. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

0-1 Concept............................................................................................................................... 1 0-2 Main types of food losses ................................................................................................... 2 0.3 Methods for food loss assessment and solution finding .................................................... 3

I. Screening Method (‘Screening’)....................................................................................... 7

I-1 Review of secondary data and key-informant (expert) interviews ..................................... 7 Output I-0: List of literature and experts consulted ........................................................... 7 Output I-1a: National production information of the subsector – Actors and product flow ...................................................................................................... 8 Output I-1b: National production information of the subsector ........................................ 9 Output I-1c: Food safety management mechanisms ........................................................ 10

I-2 Selection of Food Supply Chains ........................................................................................ 10 Output I-2a: Food supply chains in the subsector ............................................................ 11 Output I-2b: Importance of food supply chains at national level (from I-2a) ................... 11 Output I-2c: Economic importance of food supply chains for smallholder actors (from I-2a) ..................................................................................... 12

I-3 Characterization of food losses in selected FSC – Critical Loss Points ............................... 12 Output I-3a: Flow diagram of the selected FSC ................................................................. 13 Output I-3b: Preliminary screening of food losses in the selected FSC ............................ 14

I-4 Planning the implementation of the Survey, Sampling and Synthesis methods ............... 14 Output I-4a: Field case study implementation plan .......................................................... 14

II. Survey Method (‘Survey’) .............................................................................................. 15

II-1 Observations and food loss factors .................................................................................. 16 II-2 Semi-structured interviews, Key-informant interview ...................................................... 16 II-3 Basic information about the FSC - Output II-3b ............................................................... 16

Output II-3a: (Intermediary) Products and conversion factors in the FSC ........................ 16 II-4 Social structures in the FSC – Output II-4 ......................................................................... 17 II-5 Economics of the FSC – Output II-5 .................................................................................. 18 II-6 Environment-related inputs and factors in the FSC .......................................................... 18

Inputs – Output II-6a ......................................................................................................... 18 Factors – Output II-6b ....................................................................................................... 19 Output II-3b: Detailed description of the food supply chain – Basics ............................... 20 Output II-4: Detailed description of the food supply chain – Social structures ................ 21 Output II-5: Detailed description of the food supply chain – Economics ......................... 22 Output II-6a: Detailed description of the food supply chain – Environment .................... 23 Output II-6b: Factors for the environmental assessment ................................................. 24

II-7 Food loss risk factors (parameters and variables)............................................................ 24 Output II-7: Food loss risk factors ..................................................................................... 24

II-8 Validation of results and reporting .................................................................................. 24 III. Load Tracking and Sampling Method (‘Sampling’) .......................................................... 26

III-1 Screening and Survey report and data ............................................................................ 26 III-2 Setting the objective ........................................................................................................ 26 III-3 Choosing the ‘load’ .......................................................................................................... 26 III-4 Unit of measurement or Experimental unit ..................................................................... 26 III-5 Sampling .......................................................................................................................... 26 III-6 Tracking ........................................................................................................................... 27 III-7 Replication ....................................................................................................................... 27

iv

III-8 Quality and safety analysis ............................................................................................. 27 Output III-8a: QUALITY SCORING OF FOOD PRODUCTS .................................................... 28 Output III-8b: QUALITY ANALYSIS OF SAMPLED UNITS ..................................................... 28

III-9 Quantitative results ......................................................................................................... 28 Output III-9: PRESENTATION OF LOAD TRACKING AND SAMPLING RESULTS ................... 30

III-10 Quantitative / Qualitative FL, Critical Loss Points (CLP), Low Loss Points (LLP) ............ 31 Output III-10: SUMMARY RESULT MATRIX OF FOOD LOSSES ........................................... 32

IV. Solution Finding (‘Synthesis’) ........................................................................................ 33

IV-1 The causes of food loss ................................................................................................... 33 Output IV-1: Cause finding diagram .................................................................................. 33

IV-2 The solutions to food losses ............................................................................................ 34 Output IV-2a: Budget calculation for food loss reduction ................................................ 34 Output IV-2b: Assessing social implications of specific food loss solution suggestions ... 35

IV-3 Strategies for food loss reduction ................................................................................... 36 Output IV-3: Summary table of food losses, causes and solutions ................................... 37

ANNEX 1 – Terminology .............................................................................................................. 38 ANNEX 2 – Examples of outputs .................................................................................................. 39 ANNEX 3 – Semi-structured interviews. ...................................................................................... 64 ANNEX 4 – A brief on the food safety and quality dimension of the food loss methodology .... 67 ANNEX 5 – FAO Definitional framework of food loss - February 2014 ....................................... 69 ANNEX 6 – FAO Terms of Reference for Institution / Company ................................................. 72

1

0. Introduction The objective of this methodology for case studies of selected food supply chains is:

- identification and quantification of the main causes of food losses; - analysis of the impact and solutions to reduce food losses on their technical and eco-

nomic feasibility, food quality and safety requirements, social acceptability and envi-ronmental sustainability;

- concrete proposals to formulate a food loss reduction programme. 0-1 Concept Food losses refer to the decrease in edible food mass throughout the different segments of the food supply chains – production, postharvest handling, agro-processing, distribution (wholesale and retail), consumption. Food losses and their prevention have an impact on the environment and climate change, food security and livelihoods for poor people, and economic development. The exact causes of food losses vary throughout the world and are very much dependent on the specific conditions and local situation in a given country, region or production area.

During the recent decades numerous studies have been undertaken to assess the quantities of food losses in many countries of the world. Most of these studies were conducted at national level, and based on literature review, statistical data, and stakeholder interviews.

The analysis of literature and overall reports reveals the existent knowledge gap: while quanti-tative estimations of food losses have been produced, and there is certainty about the major causes of food losses, it is unclear what losses are the most important for specific supply chains, what is the impact of eventual solutions and which solutions are economically, environmentally and socially feasible. It is clear that food loss reduction will be of great benefit to all actors in the food production and supply chains, to food security for poor people, improve climate resil-ience and make more efficient use of natural resources. However, the solution to food loss should not be more expensive than the food loss itself, should not cause any negative impact or risk on consumer’s health, should not place a higher burden on the environment and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, should make more food available to the people that need it most, and should be socially and culturally acceptable.

Understanding the impacts of food losses and as well as the solutions is important from an environmental and climate change perspective. Food production systems rely on a limited nat-ural resource base along with the goods and services provided by natural ecosystems. Food losses are a waste of resources and inputs and contribute to the degradation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem. Reducing food losses will therefore help to improve efficiency and sustain-ability of food supply chains (FSC) whilst simultaneously reducing GHG emissions embedded in the losses. Furthermore, reducing losses will be key to increase the adaptive capacity to cli-mate change.

However, the role of energy also has to be considered when assessing causes of, and solutions to food losses. Insufficient access to modern energy1 and technologies may have a significant influence on post-harvest losses. It is therefore important to identify the different technologies and sources of energy utilized along the supply chain in order to assess the options for climate smart technologies to reduce food losses.

1 A reliable (and ideally sustainable) source of energy.

2

Gender analysis of the value chain allows to better understand the underlying causes of food losses from a wider perspective. The different productive and social roles of men and women affect their access to productive resources, technologies and services, as well as their social status due to imbalanced power relations. This affects the efficiency in the FSC, often resulting in an increase in food losses.

National and subsector-wide statistical surveys have as disadvantage that they don’t zoom in to specific situations, and that the information obtained cannot be verified by real measurements. Therefore the Save Food Initiative has designed the ‘food supply chain’ case studies, for the most important food subsectors in developing countries. In these case studies primary and em-pirical data will be generated for the different causes of food losses, and solutions for food losses will be analysed for their feasibility.

A case study is just a one-moment recording of what is happening in a specific food supply chain in a specific season; next season and in a different location the situation can be very different again. Therefore it is important that the Save Food Initiative can undertake many case studies in many different locations, so that the multitude of study results show significant trends and solutions. Further, the strategy aims at using the results of the case studies to target oppor-tunities for investment programmes and interventions, during which formulation a wider geo-graphical scope and the seasonality will be analysed.

0-2. Main types of food losses The Definitional Framework of Food Loss is provided in Annex 2.

Quantitative (or physical) food losses refer to the decrease in edible food mass available for human consumption throughout the different segments of the supply chain. In practical terms this is food that, after harvest (crops), capture (fish), taking to slaughter (meat) or milking (dairy) is not consumed. It is either left to deterioration and discarded accidentally/voluntarily or as required by regulations due to non-compliance with food safety standards and regulations. Quantitative loss can be caused by pests eating or spoiling the food, rotting, and contamination and spilling.

In addition to quantitative losses, food products can also face a deterioration of quality, leading to a loss of economic and nutritional value. This food has undergone changes owing to spoilage or physical damage, and such the food products are sold for a lower price than would have been achieved if they were considered of ‘best quality’. Apart from the economic loss, in most cases the quality deterioration goes along with a significant loss of nutritional value, and as such affects health and nutrition security of the population.

Several factors influence the spoilage of food products:

- Pre-harvest climatic conditions (e.g. excess water during the days before harvest).

- Harvest index used (‘physiological’ timing at which food is harvested).

- Time between harvest/ slaughter/ capture/ milking and final use or consumption.

- Temperature and moisture content of the products.

- Handling, packaging and storage practices and hygiene.

- Presence of (natural or foreign) hazards/ contaminants in the food.

- Market access and marketing strategies.

- Quality standards and regulations.

3

Food safety is the most critical dimension of food quality. If the quality has deteriorated to a level that the food is not safe anymore for human health, the food will be removed from the FSC, resulting in a quantitative food loss. Assuring food safety and quality is a clear element to reduce (e.g. applying GHP for perishable products) food loss. However sometimes lack of compliance with food safety regulations and standards leading to food withdrawal from the FSC which could lead to an increase of losses. Effective food safety controls can vary from one geographical area to another and also depends on the selected value chain, infrastructure and national capacity, none of which could be over looked while identifying the causes for food loss.

0-3. Methods for food loss assessment and solution finding This is the methodology of a case study of one or two selected FSCs, rather than a national subsector study.

An effective supply chain food loss assessment involves the collection of data and their analysis. Assessments are carried out using qualitative and quantitative field methods. Subsequently, so-lutions to food losses will be formulated from the results and conclusions of the assessment. The core of the assessment of FL in a food supply chain is the acquisition of data. For this the methodology integrates four tools (referred in this document as the ‘4S’ approach) based on an FAO publication2 and diverse lessons learned by FAO’s Rural Infrastructure & Agro-Industries Division, with different food operations. While it is suggested to use to certain degree all four methods, the feasibility of doing so can only be determined by the researcher leading the loss assessment activity.

The methods includes:

I. Preliminary Screening of Food Losses (‘Screening’). Based on secondary data, doc-umentation and reports, and expert consultations (by phone, e-mail, in person) without travel to the field.

II. Survey Food Loss Assessment (‘Survey’). A questionnaire exercise differentiated for either producers, processors or handlers/sellers (i.e. warehouse manager, distributor, wholesaler, retailer) and other knowledgeable persons of the supply chain being as-sessed, complemented with ample and accurate observations and measurements.

III. Load Tracking and Sampling Assessment (‘Sampling’). For quantitative and quali-tative analyses at any step in the supply chain.

IV. Solution Finding (‘Synthesis’). Used to develop an intervention programme for food losses, based on the previous assessment methods.

As illustrated in diagram 1 the sequence in the 4-S approach for food loss assessment should be: 1) Screening, 2) Sampling and Survey, 3) Synthesis, and concluding with the elaboration of a Final Report.

2 Diei-Ouadi and Mgawe: Post-harvest fish loss assessment in small-scale fisheries (2011)

4

Diagram 1 The Screening method is used to have a rough idea of the range of losses and some main causes for those. Notably, the Screening can provide the baseline in a particular area, zone or country (depending on the availability of data) and should be instrumental to provide a background for the planning and implementation of the Survey and Sampling methods. The Synthesis method is the step in which all results and conclusions are merged towards developing an intervention programme for food loss reduction. While all methods have the potential of providing qualita-tive and quantitative information, the qualitative analysis can only be accurate if the assessment is done in-situ (Sampling) and/or provided by highly knowledgeable actors in the FSC (Screen-ing). Quantitative data can be sourced from all methods, but the ability to reflect the reality of each will depend on 1) the accuracy of the source, being actors (Survey), data from government or other institutions (Screening), or both; and 2) the representativeness of the sample evaluated within the production operation and within the production/ handling community (Sampling).

Whether you use the Screen, Survey or Sampling method, gender analysis must be included. While all methods can provide some information for gender analysis, it is important to collect sex disaggregated data. More specifically, the following aspects must be analyzed:

• The different access to resources and services of men and women. This information helps to understand if men and women use and control strategic resources such as land, water, technologies, services, training, markets and information, which may allow them to reduce and prevent food losses.

• Cultural practices which include believes, norms and values about men and women as eco-nomic actors, can represent social barriers that may block the performance of the chain.

• Social position of men and women to identify their different ability to have a voice and influence decision-making in the food supply chain.

This is equally important for the environmental and climate change assessment. Food losses along the supply chain are expected to have both direct and indirect impact on the environment and climate change, which has to be taken into consideration. More specifically, the following aspects must be analyzed:

5

• What are the current constraints and impacts of food production of the selected supply chain to the environment and supporting ecosystems? For instance, are there issues with land degradation, water scarcity, erosion or deforestation in the area?

• What are the main issues related to climate change? Is climatic variability affecting food production and what are the adaptive capabilities of the communities? Is food production/ land-use sector in the country a major contributor to climate change? How would food loss reduction contribute to national climate change mitigation and adap-tation objectives?

• What role does energy and energy access play in food losses? What technology measures are available to reduce food losses and to increase the use of sustainable energy in the supply chain?

For finding solutions and a successful intervention programme to reduce food losses, it is ab-solutely essential that the researchers at all times try to identify the cause of each food loss that they are told about or observe during the Screening, Survey and Sampling methods, and record the causes accordingly with due attention to their level of importance, as this determines where priority should be set within given loss reduction options.

Diagrams 2 and 3 show hypothetical information that serves as an illustrative introduction of what the main tasks are before the assessment, and what the expected output is, along with an outline of recommended interventions. Since it is probably not feasible to assess all points of the supply chain, the work must emphasize on selected points, and using the methods explained below. In order to better understand the social and gender related causes of food losses, partic-ular attention should be given to the points where women are mainly involved, depending on the specific chain. It is important to determine how losses vary in those points, and distinguish the variation in types of losses along the chain.

While the case studies addressed with the 4S approach would not provide statistical valid results to determine exact levels of losses in the area/ region/ subsector, the case study needs to provide: 1) as accurate as possible the levels of losses in the different steps within the selected FSC so that the most important losses can be identified; 2) useful information for statisticians develop-ing predictive models.

The combination of quantitative data with qualitative data (as shown in Diagram 3) is of partic-ular interest as in developing countries qualitative losses are often the most abundant, and the reason for low profit margins for producers and other actors in the FSC. While it may be true that in developing countries most of the qualitative losses do not result in loss of mass, it is also true that most consumers improve economically and are conscious about quality standards. This will lead to more qualitative losses ending up in quantitative losses. The Sampling (below) re-quires specific identification of causes for the qualitative deterioration of food.

6

Diagram 2

Diagram 3

The four methods will provide users and decision makers with different ways of understanding food losses. Details of each method are provided below with some guidance and examples.

The mode of operation in this case study approach, including the various technical disciplines of the researchers/ team composition have been provided in Annex 5.

A number of detailed tables have been provided for reporting of the results. The research-ers at all times are free to insert new rows or columns in the tables, or design additional (not to replace the existing) tables and diagrams if it will present their results well. All tables and diagrams have examples in Annex 2.

7

I. Screening Method (‘Screening’) The Screening method consists of a review of secondary information and key-informant (ex-pert) interviews. This method helps to develop a qualitative understanding of losses and pro-vides indicative quantitative data for the entire loss assessment. It will provide an overview of the FSCs in the subsector, and subsequently enable to make a selection of (one or more) FSCs for Surveying and Sampling. In this phase it is important to collect sex- and age group-disaggre-gated data and information related to women’s, men’s youth’s and vulnerable groups’ involve-ment in the FSC to gain insight into social and gender constraints and strategies within the chain. National climate change strategies and action plans must be reviewed and food losses should be considered in this context. Finally the Screening method should pre-identify the Crit-ical Loss Points in the FSC, where to focus the Surveying and Sampling. In this way, when resources are limited and distances are vast, the researchers could prioritize their visit to the most critical stages of the FSC. This is important to narrow down the costly field work and optimize its output efficiency.

Secondary data are low cost, and are available from diverse sources. A secondary data review, while it depends on the quality of the available data and information provided, can be a useful way of generating background information for the entire assessment.

I-1. Review of secondary data and key-informant (expert) interviews

The sources of data and other information from documentation and experts include local insti-tutions (food science department, ministry of agriculture, ministry of environment, climate change focal points, ministry of health, national statistics, research institutions); libraries (to acquire research done in the past); non-governmental organizations (NGOs); International do-nor organizations; private sector; on-going projects; media sources, the internet. This should include experts in all relevant disciplines (climate change experts, sociologists, technologists, food safety experts, natural resource experts, economists), preferably in the specific subsector. In this phase travel should be limited, and experts should be interviewed by phone or e-mail if they are not around.

OUTPUT I-0: LIST OF LITERATURE AND EXPERTS CONSULTED

Document title Author(s) Institution, year

Expert name Title/ position Institution

The information collected here should describe the status and importance of the subsector, the developments over the last 15 years, an inventory of activities and lessons learnt from past and on-going interventions in food losses, the process of policy making and current policy frame-work or national strategy (if any) on losses in the subsector, and a brief description/ assessment of the level and extent of current implementation. Special attention should be given to existing legislation and standards (if any) - including the context of national climate change policy

8

frameworks - which contribute either by decreasing or increasing food loss throughout the FSC. See Annex 4 for a brief guidance on food safety considerations for FL assessment. It should list relevant institutions and their role in terms of policy, organisational structure, mandate and ac-tivities in the small and medium subsector industry sector.

The information sought through the Screening method should allow for the study leader to con-struct a thorough scheme showing the diverse paths in the food supply chains of the selected food product, highlighting the role of the actors rather than the activities. Output I-1a shows the amount of product (in %) moved from each actor to the different subsequent actors or utilization points. This exercise may serve to better understand the different steps in the supply chains. This can facilitate to identify later the critical loss points. The scheme can also provide a view for what are the accumulated costs associated with the food loss along the FSC.

OUTPUT I-1a: NATIONAL PRODUCTION INFORMATION OF THE SUBSECTOR - Actors and product flow

X+Y+Z = 100. P+Q = 100. P1+P2+P3+P4+P5 = P. P1= X. B1+B2+B3 = B. A1+A2 = A.

A+B+C = P3+ P4+P5+Q. C = B3+P5+Q.

Medium/ Large scale producers

Q%

Raw material Informal Trade

Y%

Raw material Not traded

X%

Processed material

Z%

Family Consumption X%

Rural and Urban Consumers Y+Z%

Retailer HoReCa Retailer

Traders A%

Smallholder producers P%

Processing Factories C%

Co-operatives B%

P1% P2%

P3%

P5+Q%

B3%

P4%

= X%

B2% B1% A1% A2%

9

OUTPUT I-1b: NATIONAL PRODUCTION INFORMATION OF THE SUBSECTOR

Annual pro-duction (t/yr)

Cultivated area (ha)

Average yield (ton / ha)

Raw material

Average annual growth over the last 10 years (%)

Average cost of production (USD / ton)

on-farm consumption marketed

Percentage of production

volume (ton/year)

value (USD/year)

Market product #1,

Market product #2,

Market product #3,

Number, sex, age of

female male Total

15-30 30-45 45+ total 15-30 30-45 45+ total Producers

Traders

Processors #1

Processors #2

Processors #3

Retailers #1

Retailers #2

Retailers #3

Small Medium Large3 Level of processing operations

Level of trading/ wholesale operations

Level of retail operations In order to help the research team to better consider food safety-related causes for losses throughout the FSC, the table below should be filled with available information on the national food safety management mechanisms, as well as the level of food safety control in the selected FSC. This includes gathering information on the required/ applied regulations and knowledge 3 Number of employees/ workers: Small: < 10. Medium: 10-50. Large: > 50

10

of potential food safety issues (most likely or significant hazards) in the selected chain based on the product type, through a desk study or interview with the actors. Any other available information on food losses due to food safety hazards which is not considered in this table should be indicated at the bottom of the table. OUTPUT I-1c: FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS

Controller Control Actual Situation in the FSC Responsible agent

Government regulation and require-ments

National food safety/ quality standards

Exists and applies to the whole FSC

Exists but not rigorous

Doesn’t exist

Frequency of checking (None, Low, Medium, High)

Harvest

Transport

Storage

Process

Market

Obligatory registration of the food processing/ preparation unit

Exists

Doesn’t exist

FSC actors - food safety management system

GHP/ GAP/ HACCP/ voluntary standards

Identification of poten-tial hazards

I-2. Selection of Food Supply Chains

A food supply chain (FSC) is a connected series of activities to produce, process and distribute food. A FSC is in principle determined by its final product. For example, a cheese FSC is dif-ferent from a fresh milk FSC, although they may have a large part in common. In this study each FSC will be selected based on its final product, the area (district, community/ies) where the raw materials are being produced, and all the intermediate segments of the chain (storage, processing, sales) that are active on the same product from the production area.

Based on the information obtained as outputs I-1a and I-1b, one or two FSCs in the subsector will be selected for in-depth survey and sampling.

Ranking FSCs by their importance in terms of economic impact and food security is paramount, as well as the contribution the particular FSC makes to national development objectives such as employment, poverty reduction and the generation of foreign exchange. Describing the pro-file of the FSC operations is important to determine where to apply the Survey method and/or the Sampling method.

Economic importance can be derived from the total value of the products from the FSC. Em-ployment provision is reflected by the number of people that receive an income, directly or

11

indirectly, from activities by the FSC. Generation of foreign exchange is the value of export of products from the FSC. Contribution to income generation for actors is the fraction of total income of the main actors in the chain (producers, processors, traders, retailers) due to their activity in the same chain. For example, one could say that the production and/or sales of cas-sava account for 50-80% of the producers’ income. The contribution to food security should be expressed in figures of national consumption of the FSC products.

The basic criteria for selection of FSCs are: - based on smallholder producers; - significant scale of food production; - preferably including agro-processing and urban market; - if possible, included in an on-going support programme for the subsector.

OUTPUT I-2a: FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS IN THE SUBSECTOR

FSC # Geographical area of production Final product

Volume of fi-nal product (ton/year)

Number, age and sex of

smallholder producers4

Market of fi-nal product,

location, buyers4

Project support

1

2

3

4

5

Table I-2a identifies and lists the main FSCs in the subsector by the geographical location, final product and market for the final product. Tables I-2b and I-2c will be completed by assigning a score of 1 (low), 2 (medium) or 3 (high) to the factors in the columns for each FSC in the rows. The total scores will be used as a guide to select the FSC for the study.

OUTPUT I-2b: IMPORTANCE OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS (from I-2a) AT NATIONAL LEVEL

FSC #

Economic Importance

Generation of foreign exchange

Contribution to national food consumption

Contribution to national nutrition

Impacts on environ-ment and climate

change

1

2

3

4

5

4 Create more columns as required

12

OUTPUT I-2c: ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS (from I-2a) FOR SMALLHOLDER ACTORS

FSC # Sex

Percentage of produce by Contribution to income generation (% share of total annual income)

smallholders Other Farmers Middle men Processors Wholesalers Retailers

1 Female

Male

2 Female

Male

3 Female

Male

4 Female

Male

5 Female

Male

I–3. Characterization of food losses in selected FSC – Critical Loss Points

The points in the FSC where food losses have the highest magnitude, the highest impact on food security, and the highest effect on the economic result of the FSC, are called the Critical Loss Points (CLP). The study will focus on those CLPs provided there is also the feasibility of con-ducting a good assessment. With this approach the impact of successful solutions are the high-est.

For the selected FSC a flow diagram has to be drawn as in Output I-3a. This diagram includes the production inputs, for the sake of documenting eventual waste or impact on environment. For example: use of water, or of wood where smoking or traditional heating is done to deliver end-products.

Details of the (intermediary) products that are being produced in the FSC are being recorded in the Survey method, Output II-3a.

13

OUTPUT I-3a: FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE SELECTED FSC

For the selected FSC the information to be listed in Output I-3b should be collected from the secondary data and expert interviews as much as possible.

As much as possible estimates of the quantitative losses at each step in the FSC will be made, as well as estimates of the qualitative losses at the different steps of the FSC. In this method a practical way to ‘estimate’ qualitative losses is by understanding the amount of product that is re-directed to lower-quality markets. Some causes (e.g. crown rot in bananas) are so well known that it can be recorded within the Screening.

FSC activities (products)

Actors Inputs and Services

14

OUTPUT I-3b: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FOOD LOSSES IN THE SELECTED FSC

FSC # ___ , <geographical area>, <market product>

Step in the FSC Expected Critical Loss Points Comments

Remarks Quantitative Qualitative

I-4. Planning the implementation of the Survey, Sampling and Synthesis methods

Based on the findings of the Screening, a plan can be made to visit the FSC and its actors where they are operating. The visits to apply the Survey and Sampling methods should focus on the identified Critical Loss Points of the FSC. Taking into account the seasonality of production and harvest is very important, to visit the FSC actors when the activities to observe are actually taking place. Preparing a “crop calendar” or an equivalent for non-crop products would be ad-visable.

Before conducting fieldwork it is important to make initial contacts with a community through key individuals, such as local officials, community leaders or chiefs, staff of projects that are operational in the area, among others taking into account special arrangements required for interactions and interviews with women. Establishing links like this will make it easier to iden-tify operators for interviews. It is important to identify culturally sensible issues to address them correctly.

Logistics (car, driver, accommodation) have to be arranged well, as well as some money for communication, interpretation, hospitality, sampling or buying samples, service fees and allow-ances, etc.

Tools to bring along: measuring tape; weighing scales; rope, knife, scissors; sampling bags, baskets and/or buckets; digital camera; mobile phone; stationery.

The implementation plan should be recorded for each FSC in Output I-4.

OUTPUT I-4a: Field Case Study implementation plan FSC: _________________________ Date Location Activities Team members Remarks

15

II. Survey Method (‘Survey’) The Survey implies making observations of the FSC right in the field, and interviews to be conducted with the FSC actors. The Survey is a tool that relies heavily on the internal assessment of the actors in the chain. In some cases this may be seen as private or sensitive information. Thus, it is important to provide a background to the producer/ handler about the on-going work, and to highlight that this survey will help them and the industry with the identification of solu-tions to food losses issues, and that no names will be associated to the information provided. In the cases that the producers are women, identify if it is necessary to be accompanied by an authority or other people from the community. The survey should be sensitive and detailed enough to identify more clearly quantitative and qualitative information than that provided in the Screening method. Very important is –with permission– to look around and make ob-servations and photos of the FSC operations as much as possible. In a community or at an FSC site at first a general orientation and familiarization is required. It consists of the following activities:

− Walk through the location and/or community to observe FSC activities and stakeholders; take photographs if allowed/ possible.

− Conduct a group interview with a cross-section of stakeholders from the location and/or community, during which the objectives of the work and the team are introduced and a flow diagram is developed to identify key activities and stakeholders. A semi-structured inter-view (SSI, § II-2 and Annex 3) is conducted to understand losses in general and who are affected. Be sure to include women’s representation, different age groups and capture the viewpoints of the most vulnerable if they are part of the stakeholders.

− Using information from the general group interview (above), undertake SSIs with groups of different stakeholders at the location to understand food losses more in detail, and obtain views on possible solutions to food losses. A separate meeting with a group of women could be important as in the general group women have often less opportunities to express them-selves.

− Carry out interviews with key informants – including those who are not FSC actors – to generate a detailed understanding of losses, including the economic value, impacts on the environment and climate change and impact on the community. Validate, cross-check and build on information from group interviews and provide case studies describing examples of the causes and effects of losses.

− In the cases that the interviewees are women, identify if it is necessary to be accompa-nied by an authority or other people from the community. Also be aware of cultural rules with respect to interviewing senior members and leaders of the community.

− Ensure that the total of people interviewed are representative of the community, if necessary by attending to specific ‘less visible’ people separately.

− Before leaving the location or community, hold a validation meeting at which the key find-ings are presented to a cross-section of stakeholders. The meeting should aim to cross-check that the team’s findings are accurate, reflect the real situation and provide an opportunity for the team to discuss the data and address any knowledge gaps.

− Prepare daily reports based on the information collected, and prepare a final loss assessment study report. Data analysis should ideally be completed in the location while memories are still fresh. Daily team meetings held at the end of a data collection day, to analyze and validate the assessment findings, are recommended.

16

II-1. Observations and food loss factors

One of the ways to understand activities, food losses and the causes of losses in a location is simply to observe what goes on and learn from what you see. Information from observations can be cross-checked or validated during subsequent SSIs. This exercise should identify a num-ber of environmental, economical, habitual or other type of factors which have an effect on food loss – see also II-7. It is important during this process to appraise the existing infrastructure and basic amenities. Checklists such as presented in Annex 2 can be used to guide the observation process.

II-2. Semi-structured interviews, Key-informant interview

How to conduct a semi-structured interview (SSI) as well as a few important things to remember when using SSIs are presented in Annex 3.

A key-informant interview (KII) is conducted with an individual or select group of people who are especially knowledgeable or experienced about FSC practices of the area, have adequate local knowledge and are conversant on food losses. Such key informants can be identified with the help of community leaders and other operators. The main purpose of a KII is to generate detailed data on losses (especially causes, economic, environmental and social impact, potential solutions), validate, crosscheck and build on information from group interviews and observa-tion, and provide case studies describing examples of the causes and effects of losses. It is im-portant that the KII gives a better understanding of the gender implications on the food losses. Further, the key-informants may have well developed views on measures to reduce food losses. The aim should be to have different views and experiences represented.

The information retrieved from the SSI, the KII and the observations should be recorded in output matrices II-3 to II-6, which as such also provide the checklists for conducting the inter-views and observations.

II-3. Basic information about the FSC – Output II-3b

Product transformation and conversion factors. In the postharvest handling and agro-pro-cessing stages of the FSC the products often undergo a transformation. For each intermediate and final product the processing conversion factor has to be determined, preferably by direct measurements in the process, that calculates the quantity of primary product/ raw material re-quired to produce the intermediate or final product. Results to be presented in Output II-3a.

OUTPUT II-3a: (INTERMEDIARY) PRODUCTS AND CONVERSION FACTORS IN THE FSC

Activity in the process Duration5 Product out Weight

from 100 Cumulative error (± %)

Conversion Factor

5 Only applicable for processes that are determined by a length of time independent of the quantity of product and the amount of labour, such as drying, fermenting, ripening, storage, transportation.

17

By-products. Most FSCs produce – in addition to the main product – also one or more by-products, which have a potential value. This could be non-food products, such as potato peels that are being used as animal feed. It can also be products that are or can be in principle food, for example the kernels of oilpalm fruits containing an edible oil. A by-product that is not con-sumable or meant for consumption (by culture, or preferences in the countries) is not a food loss. It is food loss only if people would eat it, but can’t because the FSC is not equipped for making it available for human consumption. This could happen when for example the pro-cessing technology is not available, or the process is not efficient resulting in a higher quantity of by-product than it should have. The final destination of the by-products should be identified and reported.

Services. A short listing and – if meaningful – description of services that the owner of the product in each stage of the FSC engages/ hires/ receives to facilitate the product and process flow. These services could be specific processing, packaging, transportation, storage, cleaning, marketing, casual labour, consultation. This means that in some cases the step in the FSC could be a service at the same time, e.g. milling.

Product quality and safety. Food safety could be a potential cause for losses throughout the food chain. Food safety related causes are sometimes visible (insects, mold, filth) but could be also invisible (excess pesticide residues, mycotoxins). The extent (contribution) of food safety and quality on food losses can vary from one geographical area to another and also depending on the selected value chain, infrastructure and national capacity in government and value chain, none of which should be over looked while identifying the causes for food loss.

Furthermore, since the food loss assessment team is a multi-disciplinary team (expertise in-volved in the work such as food safety, technology, gender and social, economy, etc.) before starting the implementation of the methodology, the team should be briefed and have a common understanding of the different aspects that are reflected in this work. This would maximize the performance and increase the synergy among the people involved.

See Annex 4 for a brief on the food safety and quality dimension of the food loss methodology.

II-4. Social structures in the FSC – OUTPUT II-4

The different activities along the FSC are taking place in specific social contexts and under varying conditions. The social structures determine the differentiated gender roles; women usu-ally participate in more intensive labor activities, have different, often less, access to resources and services than men, boosting their outputs; and are less involved in rural organizations and decision making limiting their access to facilities, information and markets.

To address these gender differentials that might influence FL, it is necessary to understand the social structures of the FSC, to look at the division of labour at each FSC step and identify the gender and age of the main group of actors involved. While understanding if the activity is dominated by men or women, it is possible to identify who to target. If an activity is identified as a loss point, and if this activity is mainly managed by women, there could be some gender related causes and thus, gender related solutions should be applied.

In the table, use the collected data and observations to indicate the main actors involved in the FSC step (girls, women, boys, men) and then assess the conditions of this involvement by qual-ifying the FSC actors’ participation with a value from 1 to 4, based on an evaluation of how well the identified participants are equipped, how sanitary conditions are, if they have access to extension services and training etc. required to minimize FL.

18

Rating Score Description 4 – Excellent Excellent equipment and sanitary conditions; extension services and

training are easily accessible. 3 – Good Good equipment and sanitary conditions; extension services and training

are accessible. 2 – Moderately good

Satisfactory equipment and sanitary conditions; extension services and training are somewhat accessible.

1 – Bad Bad equipment and sanitary conditions; extension services and training are not accessible.

Also, indicate if the activity is done individually, in the household together with other family members and/or as part of a rural organization/cooperation. Finally, provide some explanation on the chosen qualifier and/or additional observations, examples etc.

II-5. Economics of the FSC - OUTPUT II-5

This section provides the information of the FSC as a Value Chain, indicating the costs of all operations in the FSC, and the value of the products reflected as farm-gate, wholesale and/or retail prices, resulting in the value-added of the final product. Apart from Table II-5, the re-searchers are at liberty to provide more detailed information – if necessary in self-created tables – on the for example the costs of various inputs (labour, materials, services, energy, etc.) and the revenue from various by-products. Any other economic considerations relevant to the se-lected FSC are equally welcome.

II-6. Environment-related inputs and factors in the FSC

The researchers should record and describe the inputs and parameters related to the environ-mental, climate change and energy dimension of agricultural or fisheries production, processing and distribution and the potential impacts of these practices, with information covering the as-pects relating to natural resources – water, land, ecosystems, energy and potential sources of GHG emissions. An example of inputs and a checklist of parameters has been provided in An-nex 2. This is not an exhaustive list of all parameters but rather a guidance.

Inputs - OUTPUT II-6a. Production. Record all the inputs that are used on farm or on board, and the quantities used. At farm level it is important to note the use of synthetic fertilizers or chemicals as this has impacts on soils and the capacity to retain moisture and nutrients as well as contributes to GHG emis-sions. All tools and equipment should also be noted along with both energy and water inputs at production level. Storage. Record the storage technology as well as the source of energy used to regulate temperature and moisture, if any. In case sheds are used where no energy is being used, describe the construction of the shed. This would include the physical characteristic of the storage infrastructure and the material used for building, for instance lack/ presence of walls, shed made of stems and leaves. A picture of the storage infrastructure would be desirable. Pro-cessing and packaging. The technology used for the processing of food, the capacity of pro-cessing plant and the source of energy should be documented. This would include processing such as drying, smoking, baking, canning etc. This should also include water consumption for the different processes. The corresponding energy source and how much energy is used for processing should also be noted. Transportation. The mode of transport should be noted. The details that would need to be noted for instance include how food is transported e.g. vans, trucks

19

bullock carts etc. In case trucks and vans are used, it should we noted if they are air conditioned or cold trucks as well as their fuel mileage (liters of diesel consumed/km). Retail. Energy use at retail level would focus on storage and ripening facilities for wholesalers and retailers in markets. Normally this would be cooling (freezing, refrigeration, air conditioning) powered by electricity. However, if remote areas lack electricity, then it should be noted how the food is being chilled and stored. Pictures of the facilities would be desirable.

Factors – OUTPUT II-6b.

Provide detailed information on the farming/fishing practices where the commodity is being produced. Unsustainable land and fishing practices have negative impacts on environment and increases vulnerability, particularly when food is then lost later along the supply chain. It is therefore important to note practices such as tillage, cutting down trees, slash-and-burn, flood irrigation, etc. as these methods contribute to forest and ecosystem degradation, soil infertility and erosion. Any issues with land degradation and soil quality due to agricultural practices re-lated to land preparation for cultivation should therefore be noted. It is also important to record if cultivation and agricultural expansion has been a driver of deforestation and degradation of other ecosystems. What are the main sources of GHG emissions that are non-energy related? This would include emissions from degraded soils, deforestation, methane from paddy rice and livestock as well as biomass burning in the field. Is the production rainfed or irrigated? Describe the state of water quality and availability and note if changes have been observed related to rainfall patterns, drought, etc. For fisheries, the main focus should be on fishing practices and impacts to ecosystem diversity and functioning. Additionally, it is important to identify and understand any potential impact that climatic change may have on losses at production level as well as to identify how solutions can contribute to climate resilience and adaptation.

Whenever food losses are identified along all stages of the supply chain it is important to note any alternative use of the losses or if they are re-introduced as biofuels, animal feed or for composting, etc.

20

OUTPUT II-3b: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – BASICS

FSC stage6 Geographical7 Location

Months of the year8 Main Prod-

ucts9 Quantity

(ton) By-products Quantity (ton)

Duration/ Distance10 Services

Food safety and quality controls applied by that

part of the chain from to

Primary production

Harvest

Post-harvest handling

Storage

Transportation

Market sales

Agro-pro-cessing

Storage

Transportation

Wholesale

Retail

6 If one stage in the FSC has two different features, another row should be inserted. E.g. if in the same FSC both crib storage and warehouse storage exist. 7 Village/town where the FSC stage is located. 8Timing of the stage of the FSC. 9 “final” product produced by stage of the FSC. 10 How long does the process in the FSC stage take / what is the distance (and duration) of transportation.

21

OUTPUT II-4: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – SOCIAL STRUCTURES

FSC STEPS

Involvement of Women Involvement of Men Who is mainly in-

volved: women, men, chil-

dren

Organization level of FSC actors11

Gender / social patterns Observations and remarks that explain the chosen

qualifiers and/or give additional information Girls Adult women Boys Adult men

Qualifier12 Qualifier Qualifier Qualifier

Primary production

Harvest

Post-harvest, handling

Storage

Transportation

Market sales

Agro-pro-cessing

Storage

Transportation

Wholesale

Retail

11 f.i. Individual/Household level/Cooperative 12 Qualify the equipment, conditions, access to services and training, 4: excellent, 3: good, 2: moderately good, 1: bad.

22

OUTPUT II-5: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – ECONOMICS

FSC stage Main Products

Cost of operation USD/kg

Cost USD/kg final

product

Cumulative Cost

USD/kg

Value USD/kg final

product

Value-added / Margins USD/kg

Remarks

Primary production

Harvest

Post-harvest handling

Storage

Transporta-tion

Market sales

Agro-pro-cessing

Storage

Transporta-tion

Wholesale

Retail

It could be required to calculate the cost and price for each intermediary product per kg equivalent to the final product, using the con-version factors of OUTPUT II-3a.

23

OUTPUT II-6a: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – ENVIRONMENT

PRODUCTION Quantity Unit

Tools, Equipment, Facilities

Materials, Chemicals

Energy

Water

Land

STORAGE Quantity Unit

Tools, Equipment, Facilities

Materials, Chemicals

Energy

TRANSPORTATION Quantity Unit

Tools, Equipment, Facilities

Energy

PROCESSING Quantity Unit

Tools, Equipment, Facilities

Materials, Chemicals

Energy

Water

WHOLESALE, RETAIL Quantity Unit

Tools, Equipment, Facilities

Energy

24

OUTPUT II-6b: FACTORS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Factors Description Details

Type of production system Land preparation practices Fishing grounds

Soil quality and land degra-dation

Water regime Ecosystem impacts Sources of GHG emissions

Climatic factors

Utilization of residues in the supply chain

Re-use of food losses

II-7. Food loss risk factors (parameters and variables)

Based on gained insights and understanding of food losses, where and why they occur, it could be possible to develop a calculator-based model for the estimation and prediction of food losses at different locations and for coming seasons. The model could be based on variables that have a relation - the parameter - to (the causes of) food losses. Clearly, in one season and one FSC a general cause-effect relation between variable and food losses cannot be established, and cer-tainly not quantified. However, the researchers should identify potential factors, and record the ‘value’ of the variables (quantitative or qualitative) in Output II-7. Mathematically this could look like: FL = parameter × variable. OUTPUT II-7: FOOD LOSS RISK FACTORS

Variable Unit Parameter - relation to food losses

Value of variable (observed in the

case study)

II-8. Validation of results and reporting

At the end of the Survey a validation meeting will be held with key representatives of the com-munity. The inclusion of (local) government staff is an effective way of raising awareness about food losses. It also provides an opportunity for discussing loss reduction interventions and en-courages support to follow up actions on the findings.

At the validation meeting it is important to obtain a reliable impression of the FSC actors’ per-ception of the food losses, how important these are to them, and to collect suggestions for ap-plicable solutions.

25

The validation meeting is also an opportunity to analyze and raise social and gender dimensions and highlight the social patterns that affect men’s and women’s jobs, tasks and position in the value chains, as well as the efficiency and competitiveness levels that can lead to food losses caused by gender inequalities.

The results of the Survey are to be summarized in Output matrices II-3 to II-6. In addition, the report should describe in detail how all figures have been obtained.

26

III. Load Tracking and Sampling Method (‘Sampling’) If there is an opportunity, it is encouraged to take actual measurements of food losses, for ex-ample by sampling a harvested area or a product batch, and take the weight of the lost product as percentage of the total product.

While Screening and Survey provide an understanding of food losses, load tracking (LT) is a method that is used to measure specific losses. It is typically used to measure losses during postharvest handling, storage, processing, transportation or marketing, relying on measuring quantity and quality losses before and after one or more events. The method relies on evaluating the quality and/or weight of (a sample of) a load of food product as it moves through a supply chain. Load tracking is a quantitative loss assessment that requires some skills in design of statistical experiments and data analysis. The method consists of the following key elements that need to be considered in design and implementation.

III-1. Screening and Survey report and data

With these findings prioritized losses will be identified to be investigated further by LT. The findings also have identified where these losses occur and who is affected by the particular loss and, therefore, who should be involved or contacted about participating in the LT activity.

III-2. Setting the objective

The objective of LT will be derived from Screening and Survey findings. The objective must be desirable and achievable. For example: ‘Measure the quantity and quality food losses of product X during packaging and transportation, and identify the causes of food losses’. III-3. Choosing the ‘load’

A load is a certain quantity of product, which can be followed (tracked) on its way through (part of) the FSC as one batch, and of which the changes in weight and quality can be measured. A load can be the harvest of one farmer or a group of farmers on one day, a truck load of maize cobs or banana bunches, the production of dried fish by a processor in one week, a production batch of yoghurt by a small dairy plant to be sold to the supermarket. It has to be determined how many loads are being produced in the FSC per year.

III-4. Unit of measurement or Experimental unit

These are units taken (sampled) from a load. The most practical is to make use of the units that are being generated and used in the FSC, for example a bucket of fish, a bag of maize grain, a container of milk or a bunch of bananas. It depends on the size of such a unit, whether the whole unit will be evaluated and measured, or whether again a representative smaller sample will be taken from the unit. This latter unit will normally be a weight or volume unit (kg or ltr).

III-5. Sampling

Often a two-stage sampling is required: 1) a systematic selection of units from the load, and 2) a random sample from the selected units, to be a measurable unit. For example: from a bag of maize grain (1st-stage sample) with a scoop one kg of grains (2nd stage sample) can be taken as measurable units from three parts of the bag (bottom, center, top); from a bunch of bananas (1st stage sample) a few bananas (2nd-stage sample) can be picked randomly. In all cases the weight or volume of the unit and the samples has to be measured.

Sample size: a 1st-stage sample size should preferably be 30% of the load, however with a maximum of 20 samples. A 2nd-stage sample size could normally be 1 kg or 1 litre.

Based on the samples, the total weight as well as the product quality of the load can be deter-mined.

27

NB.: The weight loss as a result of regular intentional processes such as drying, fermentation, heating, etc. is not food loss. If such processes apply to a load, parallel samples of sound product have to be taken before and after the process to measure the intended weight loss.

III-6 Tracking

The sampling as described by point 5 above has to be applied twice for a load: one time when the load enters an event, and one time when it exits the event. In this way the food losses in-curred during the event can be measured. Examples: sampling of a load of milk when it leaves the farm, and just before it enters the dairy factory; a load of fish or maize before and after the drying process; a load of bananas during three days in the retail market.

It is of critical importance that the Load does not get mixed or supplemented with new product during the load tracking process. III-7. Replication

The load tracking and sampling as described by point 3 to 6 above provide a ‘one moment shot’ of what is happening on food losses in the FSC. However, along the season and geographical areas, with varying climatic conditions and varying human practices, results will be different with time and place. Pre-knowledge of the conditions that have effect on food losses (location, season, rainfall, cultural practices, product variety, distance to market, etc.) is required to design a statistical survey with meaningful replications. Therefore it is required to replicate the load tracking a number of times. As a general guide we could say that three replications at each of two or three different sites, times of the year, or rainfall conditions would be sufficient. How-ever, it will be at the conditions in the FSC and the researchers’ judgment to decide whether this is feasible within the time frame of the study.

III-8. Quality and safety analysis

Analysing quality can be subjective, thus, it is best if done with the guidance of a well-experi-enced person that can easily determine quality parameters and reasons for quality deterioration. To include in the analysis, consider quality factors that: 1) pose health risk to consumer; 2) pose consequences to the price of the product; 3) are easily determined, and deterioration can be forecasted given the handling system or the nature of the product.

The qualitative analysis can be done to the product that is ‘lost’ or has been rejected by deter-mining the reason of rejection (or the main cause of the deterioration) or can be done to product that is still considered in the market, but with visible quality deterioration. In the latter case, the cause of quality degradation should be indicated. The first step is to determine the overall sen-sory (visual for most) quality of the product.

If a national grading system exists for the product, this should preferably be used. Otherwise, create a 10-point scale for assessing food quality, were: 0 = completely unfit for consumption, to be discarded, and 10 = in perfect shape. Then produce a table as below for each product being evaluated, and if possible add photos of the different quality stages of the product. Try to pro-vide a realistic indication, based on observations, of the reduction of the market value of the product as a result of reduced quality. It is important for the team to consider whether there are causes of food loss due to the decision taken by regulatory authorities or by industry to remove food from the value chain due to safety concerns i.e. not all the quality related causes are visible. Depending on the context and findings (and resources available), the team may also need to decide whether there is benefit in sampling and analysis of product to better investigate the actual hazard or levels present.

28

OUTPUT III-8a: QUALITY SCORING OF FOOD PRODUCTS

PRODUCT: <product name>_____________

Quality score Description of the quality %age reduction

of market value

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

If at any point, the sample taken contains product that is ranked 7 or below, a description of the reasons/ cause for the lower-than-the-highest ranks should be added. The qualitative analysis should define the major reason for quality degradation between the main types of quality defect problems: 1) physical damage; 2) physiological damage; 3) biological damage, 4) non-compli-ance with regulatory or voluntary standards. The results should be presented in table Output III-8b.

OUTPUT III-8b: QUALITY ANALYSIS OF SAMPLED UNITS

Unit evaluated

Overall quality score

Type of damage (deterioration) if any Potential cause and symptoms

1

2

3

4

5

REPORT: Average score:

III-9. Quantitative results

The quantitative results show what is actually measured in an LT activity. The most appropriate measurement is an objective measurement such as the weight. This gives a more accurate esti-mate of losses, although it is often necessary to convert this to a percentage and a monetary value in order to express the results in a form more easily recognized by decision-makers. For example, the result could be ‘the weight of food discarded, or weight of food sold at lower price’.

29

To quantify loss of mass, one has to measure the weight of the units at the beginning and at the end of each stage or activity being assessed. This is more complicated when the stage by its nature induces a reduction of weight, like drying or sales. In those cases, one should from meas-uring the samples determine the percentage of the product that has become unfit or less fit for processing, sales or consumption and will be discarded (lost) or incur loss of economic and/or nutritional value.

When measuring quality loss one has to assess the quality of the product at the beginning and at the end of each stage or activity being assessed, to determine changes. Determining quality can be subjective and therefore a quality grading table has to be used, either from national quality standards if they exist, or designed by the researchers based on the operators’ experience and understanding of quality.

With regard to the response on causes and solutions, it is extremely important in LT to observe the nature of the food losses that are being measured, and their direct causes. This will provide strong evidence-based cases for food loss reduction proposals.

There are some key ways in which the data from LT can be analysed and presented. Biometric or statistical knowledge and skills will ease the data analysis process. Software packages and computers are also helpful in data analysis.

Initial data analysis and summary statistics can be calculated by hand and do not necessarily require a computer. The most common summary statistics to use are the mean (average) and variance. The results can be presented in the table of Output III-9.

Graphical methods: the simplest method for visualizing the results of LT is to present the data in table form showing means and totals, and then using these data to draw bar and line graphs. Histograms are also useful for examining the distribution of a response.

30

OUTPUT III-9: PRESENTATION OF LOAD TRACKING AND SAMPLING RESULTS

A Product

B Event

C Duration of the event

D Location

Before the event Experimental Unit Weight of unit Nr of units Total weight

E Load

F 1st-stage sample

G 2nd-stage sample

Value (score / %) Observations / Causes

H Sample size 2nd-stage

I Average quality score (0 – 10)

J %age unfit (< 2)

K %age low quality (2-6)

After the event Experimental Unit Weight of unit Nr of units Total weight

L Load

M 1st-stage sample

N 2nd-stage sample

Value (score / %) Observations / Causes

O Sample size 2nd-stage

P Average quality score (0 – 10)

Q %age unfit (< 2)

R %age low quality (2-6)

Quantity loss Value (%) Observations / Causes

S %age lost (E-L)/E

Quality loss Value (%) Observations / Causes

T %age lost (Q-J)

U %age quality reduction (R-K)

31

III-10. Quantitative / Qualitative FL, Critical Loss Points (CLP), Low Loss Points (LLP) Quantitative food loss refers to food that ultimately is not eaten by people. Qualitative food loss refers to food that has incurred a reduction in economic value or nutritional value, but not in weight and everything will be eaten by people. The Survey method should verify if the CLPs anticipated by the Screening method (par. I-3) indeed are Critical Loss Points.

Low Loss Points (LLP): The Survey and Sampling methods may reveal points in the FSC where the losses are actually unexpectedly low, which is < 1%. It is very important to record such observations and report on the reasons, as it may be the result of good practices and/or condi-tions which could serve as solutions to high losses in other FSCs.

For the environmental impact of food loss it is very important is to observe and record the destination of food loss: what happens with the food which is not going to be eaten by people. This food loss could be used as animal feed, as compost, put on agricultural land or dumped as garbage.

The results of Survey and Sampling methods will be summarized in Output III-10.

32

OUTPUT III-10: SUMMARY RESULT MATRIX OF FOOD LOSSES

FSC stage/

process

Type of loss

Qn./Ql.

%age lost in this

process Quant

%age of the product that

incurred quality loss in this process

%age of product that goes through

this stage

%age loss in the FSC

Cause of loss/ Reason for low

loss

Re-duced

market value

CLP / LLP

Destina-tion of

food loss

Impacts on the environ-

ment/climate change/natural

resources

Impact/ FSC actors affected (men / women)

Loss percep-tion of

FSC actors (men /

women)

Suggested solutions

With regard to the economic impact of food losses, try to calculate or estimate the financial loss for the affected FSC actors as well as the overall economic loss of the food supply chain – in absolute figures and as percentage of the actor’s income cq. total value generated in the FSC.

33

IV. Solution Finding (‘Synthesis’) IV-1. The causes of food loss

While sometimes it is easy to determine the cause for the damage, there are often cases that the actual cause is not as clearly identified. The origin of some causes could be located at the up-stream of the value chain, but the impact and actual loss happens further down in the value chain – or the other way around! We categorize the causes into micro (each stage of the FSC), meso (structural/secondary causes) and macro (impact of law and regulation) level. Accord-ingly the solutions could be developed at these three levels based on the identified causes and be supported by the actors and stakeholders that are operational and responsible at these respec-tive levels.

A process of verification and identification of cause(s) of losses should be followed. The dia-gram below suggests such a process. The evaluator should first describe well the symptoms, determine the type of defect, consulting different sources what the main factor for quality deg-radation was and verify if there is more than one origin for the defects.

OUTPUT IV-1: CAUSE FINDING DIAGRAM 1. Food loss assessment methods have revealed a batch of food products containing losses or product of low quality. 2. Identify and describe the symptoms that lead to this quantitative / quality loss. 3. Verify the possible causes by consultation of experts and literature, and by on-site investiga-tion. 4. Identify the real cause of the low quality and subsequent food loss. 5. Find the underlying reason for the cause, why the problem hasn’t been solved yet.

CAUSE BRAIN-STORMING

EXPERTS/ FSC ACTORS LITERATURE

TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE SKILLS

INVESTMENT CLIMATE

LEGISLATION POLICY

UNDER-DEVELOP-MENT

CULTURE/ GENDER REASON

SYMPTOMS PHYSICAL CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL NON-COMPLIANCE

PHYSIOLOGICAL NO SYMPTOM INVISIBLE

INVESTIGATION

TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE SKILLS/ PRACTICES REAL CAUSE

SCREENING SAMPLING SURVEY FOOD LOSS

CLIMATE CHANGE

34

IV-2. The solutions to food losses

FSC actors will be the first source to suggest solutions for food losses, during the Survey method. Ensure women take part in solution finding. Provide a summary of the Critical Losses that have been identified, including the cause(s) and potential solution(s), as in the table of Output IV-3.

For each potential solution an intervention has to be proposed to implement it, and the technical and financial (economic, commercial) feasibility of the interventions have to be determined. The cost of the intervention could be private (equipment, training, packaging) or public (infra-structure, tax benefits, credit facilities), or both. The economic feasibility should be based on at least 10 years of operation of the proposed improvements. A table to calculate a quick budget for food loss reduction intervention is provided in Output IV-2a.

OUTPUT IV-2a: BUDGET CALCULATION FOR FOOD LOSS REDUCTION

item value unit calculation

a Product quantity ton/year

b Product value $/ton

c Loss rate %

d Anticipated loss reduction %

e Cost of intervention $

f Depreciation years

g Yearly costs of investment $/year e / f

h Yearly costs of operation $/year

i Total yearly costs of solution $/year g + h

j Client costs per ton product $/ton i / a

k Food loss ton/year c × a

l Economic loss $/year k × b

m Loss reduction ton/year k × d

n Loss reduction savings $/year m × b

o Total Client costs $/year a × j = i

p Profitability of solution $/year n - o

The economic implications of the solution have to be assessed. These could include: - the price of the products; - income generation; - the response from the markets. - GDP

35

The social implications - general or specifically related to men or women - of the solution have to be assessed. These could include: - the employment situation; - increasing/ reducing workload; - the need for training to apply the solutions; - who are going to benefit from the solutions, and who not; - the required degree of organization of the beneficiaries; - dynamics of power in the FSC - ‘ownership’ of the solutions, who is in charge; - will the solutions cause people to be excluded from the value chain.

OUTPUT 1V-2b: Assessing social implications of specific food loss solution suggestions (How) Does the suggested solu-tion …

Description of the po-tential impact

Gender dimension of the impact (how women and men may be affected differently)

Suggestions to mitigate negative impacts

The food security implications of the solution have to be assessed. These could include: - availability of food; - access to food; - safety of food; - nutritional value of food.

The environmental implications of the solution have to be assessed. These could include: - use of land and water; - use of energy; - type of energy required and what will be the source; - waste products and waste water.

The climate change implications of the solution will have to be assessed. The solutions should therefore be in accordance with national mitigation and adaptation objectives. It must be clearly outlined how the proposed solutions is contributing to specific elements of climate change plan-ning, such as:

- Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) - National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) - Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) - Other climate change strategies, green economies, National Communications, etc.

Outlining how the solutions can contribute to national climate change mitigation and adaptation priorities will be of significant importance for improving the financial attractiveness of food loss reduction measures and their action plans.

36

The above analysis of the solutions includes an assessment of prerequisites, risks and obstacles to implementation.

IV-3. Strategies for food loss reduction

In principle, there won’t be the formulation of a stand-alone food loss reduction strategy, but rather strategic elements which should be integrated in existing national strategies for food se-curity, agriculture/ fisheries, natural resources and/or economic development.

A national stakeholder workshop will be organized at the end of the field work, to discuss and validate the proposed solutions and define elements of a food loss reduction strategy. The work-shop is important opportunity to raise awareness on the issue of food losses in the context of climate change and identify ways for integrating this with national and sub-national climate change priorities including adaptive capacities and technology needs. During the workshop the basic concept will be prepared for an investment project to formulate the food loss reduction strategic elements in detail, apply them into the national strategies and implement solutions to effectively reduce food losses.

37

OUTPUT IV-3: SUMMARY TABLE OF FOOD LOSSES, CAUSES AND SOLUTIONS

Critical Loss Point

Magnitude of losses in the FSC Cause of loss

Intervention to reduce losses

Loss reduction Cost of

intervention (USD)

Economic im-plications

Social im-plications

Food secu-rity implica-

tions

Environmental and climate

change implica-tions

Policy implica-tions

%age weight USD %age USD

38

ANNEX 1 Terminology.

Semi-structured Interview (SSI)

Subsector (SS)

Food Supply Chain (FSC): The connected series of activities to produce, process and distribute food.

Value Chain (VC): The connected series of value-adding activities to produce, process and distribute food.

Food Losses (FL)

Critical Loss Point (CLP)

Low Loss Point (LLP)

Smallholder Producer

Level of operators: Small, Medium, Large scale

39

ANNEX 2 EXAMPLES OF OUTPUTS OUTPUT I-1a: Actors and product flow in the milk supply chain

The percentages indicate the fraction of milk that is produced by, or passed on to the actors. The thick blue ar-rows indicate the selected supply chains in the study.

40

OUTPUT I-1b: NATIONAL PRODUCTION INFORMATION OF THE SUBSECTOR

Annual pro-duction (t/yr)

Cultivated area (ha)

Average yield (ton / ha)

Raw material 500,000 120,000 4.2

Average annual growth over the last 10 years (%) 3.3% 0.3% 3.0%

Average cost of production (USD / ton)

on-farm consumption marketed

Percentage of production 40% 60%

volume (ton/year)

value (USD/year)

Market product #1, maize meal 150,000 40.5M

Market product #2, stock feed 80,000 40M

Market product #3, maize oil 20,000 20M

Number, sex, age of

female male Total

15-30 30-45 45+ total 15-30 30-45 45+ total Producers 5K 30K 25K 60K 5K 10K 25K 40K 100,000

Traders 0 120 120

Processors #1 300S 100S 400S + 10L

Processors #2 10L

Processors #3 3L

Retailers #1 200

Retailers #2

Retailers #3 200

Small Medium Large Level of processing operations X X

Level of trading/ wholesale operations X

Level of retail operations X X X K = thousand. M = million. L = large scale. S = small scale.

41

OUTPUT I-1c: FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS

Controller Control Actual Situation in the FSC Responsible agent

Government regulation and require-ments

National food safety/ quality standards

Exists and applies to the whole FSC

Food and drug ad-ministration Exists but not rigorous X

Doesn’t exist

Frequency of checking (None, Low, Medium, High)

Harvest L Food safety author-ity/ food inspection agency / food stand-ards agency

Transport N

Storage L

Process M

Market M

Obligatory registration of the food processing/ preparation unit

Exists

Doesn’t exist X

FSC actors - food safety management system

GHP/ GAP/ HACCP/ voluntary standards GAP / GMP

Identification of poten-tial hazards Mycotoxin, pesticide

OUTPUT I-2a: FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS IN THE SUBSECTOR

FSC # Geographical area of production Final product

Volume of fi-nal product (ton/year)

Number, age and sex of

smallholder producers

Market of fi-nal product,

location, buyers

Project support

1 Munchinji Maize 100 000 F-5000 M-4000 Lilongwe IFAD

2 Kaware Maize 120 000 F-5000 M-5000

Kaware, Lilongwe CARE

3 Mponela Maize 80 000 F-5000 M-3000 Blantyre IREEP

4

5

42

OUTPUT I-2b: IMPORTANCE OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS AT NATIONAL LEVEL

FSC #

Economic Importance

Generation of foreign exchange

Contribution to national food consumption

Contribution to national nutrition

Environmental and climate

change impact

1 3 1 3 2 2

2 3 1 3 2 1

3 1 1 2 2 1

4

5

OUTPUT I-2c: ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS (from I-2a) FOR SMALLHOLDER ACTORS

FSC # Sex

Percentage of produce by Contribution to income generation (% share of total annual income)

smallholders Other Farmers Middle men Processors Wholesalers Retailers

1 Female 50% 20% 80% 40% 30% 70% 20%

Male 30% 0% 20% 60% 80% 50% 50%

2 Female

Male

3 Female

Male

4 Female

Male

5 Female

Male

43

OUTPUT I-3: FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE MAIZE FSC

Farming (maize plant)

Harvesting cutting, stooking, dehusking

(maize plant)

Shelling (maize cob)

Drying (maize cob)

Storage (maize grain)

Sales (maize grain)

Sales (maize grain) to urban traders

Sales (maize grain) to rural households

Retail (maize grain, flour)

Milling (maize grain)

Milling (maize grain)

Retail (maize flour)

farmers

farmers

farmers

farmers

cooperative

cooperative

village traders

posho millers medium/ large mil-

lers

kiosk/ market supermarkets

fertilizer pesticides

labour

drying structure,

fuel

mechanical sheller

community store

FSC activities (products)

Actors Inputs and Services

transportation market facilities

milling services

44

OUTPUT I-3b: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FOOD LOSSES IN THE SELECTED FSC

FSC # _2_ , <geographical area>, <yoghurt>

Step in the FSC Expected Critical Loss Points Comments

Remarks Quantitative Qualitative

Transport to the collection center 10-12% high

The containers are not clean and not made of appropriate materials, long distance, high tem-perature

Receiving point at the collec-tion center 5% n/a Rejection due to adul-

teration

OUTPUT I-4a: Field Case Study implementation plan FSC: MILK Date Location Activities Team members Remarks

20–25 June <capital> Screening: Desk review and interview with the main stakeholders and VC actors

1-14 July <village name> Survey: observations, ssi Sampling: FL measurements

15-20 July <village name> Sampling: load tracking

OUTPUT II-1: (INTERMEDIARY) PRODUCTS IN THE FSC – EXAMPLE OF GARI

Process Duration Product out Weight from 100

Cumulative error (± %)

Conversion Factor

harvesting cassava tubers 100 - 1.00

peeling peeled cassava 80 5 1.25

grating cassava pulp 80 6 1.25

fermenting 3 days fermented pulp 58 8 1.72

sieving sieved pulp 49 9 2.04

roasting gari 25 11 4.00

45

PARAGRAPH II-3:

Checklist of general parameters for observations and interviews in Survey.

• Is there a form of inspection or control in place, either by the sector itself of by the authori-ties?

• Are sanitary conditions adequate?

• Are there animals wandering freely where food products are handled or processed, etc.?

• Is personal hygiene of producers, handlers and processors adequate?

• Are food products isolated from potential (sources of) contaminants (soil, insects, birds, chemicals, people, etc.), and how?

• Are food products protected from the sun and rain, and how?

• Are food products cooled or pre-cooled, adequately or not?

• Are food products packaged and stored adequately, and without delay?

• Are food products handled carefully to avoid damage?

• Is potable water used to wash food products or equipment?

• What are the different types of food products available or produced?

• What are the measurement and packaging units used, and how is it measured?

• How are food products transported and does this cause any damage or other loss?

• Are food products being processed adequately?

• Is there a practice of avoiding losses by re-using or re-working substandard product?

• Does the process produce (valuable) by-products?

• Are any quality standards being applied?

• What processing methods and equipment are used?

• What coping strategies are being used at the site to control losses?

• How effective are loss reduction measures?

• To what extent is the local infrastructure in place and adequate?

46

PARAGRAPH II-3:

Checklist of food safety and quality parameters for observations and interviews in Survey

All in yellow above in PARAGRAPH II-3 could be used as food safety and quality checklist and removed to here.

The following table shows in greater detail how the team should observe in practice food safety controls and handling of the product at different parts of the chain.

Stage of FSC Food Safety related inputs for observation

Primary Pro-duction (farms, sea, etc.)

• Application of GAP (Good Agriculture Practice). This would cover the presence of pesticide, mycotoxin and veterinary drugs

• Check the related records on above • Quality of the product

• Animal health, GHP (Good Hygiene Practice) in farm such as in han-dling the product, cleaning and disinfection, clean equipment, cross contamination, etc.

• Quality of the product

• Quality of the fish after the catch • Condition of storage (for short period) on the spot before sending it to

the market e. g exposure to sun, enough ice available, etc.

Storage

• Actual product quality • Condition of storage; Temperature, Humidity • Hygiene, pests • Packaging • Length of storage

Transporta-tion

• Duration of the transport (proximity of the market/consumer) • Temperature • Handling by workers • Quality of the product before and after

Processing • Application of HACCP and/or GMP ( quality management, factory standards, contamination control, personal hygiene)

• Any private standard/protocol in place to ensure food safety and qual-ity

• Quality of water for cleaning and for process

Retail • Quality of the product when arriving • Storage and cool chambers • Stalls

47

OUTPUT II-3b: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – BASICS

FSC stage13 Geographical14 Location

Months of the year15 Main Prod-

ucts16 Quantity

(ton) By-products Quantity (ton)

Duration/ Distance17 Services

Food safety and quality controls applied by that

part of the chain from to

Primary production

farm village <name> Feb May maize 4 months tractor GAP

Harvest farm village <name> Jun Aug maize cobs 180 stalks 2 months

Post-harvest handling

farm village <name> Jun Aug maize grain 100 shelled cobs 80 Good hygienic

practice / GHP

Storage village <name> Aug Feb maize grain 60 6 months warehouse GMP

Transportation Jun Aug maize grain 40 30 km truck GMP

Market sales city <name> Jun Aug maize grain 40 market facility

Agro-pro-cessing city <name> Feb Mar maize flour 60 grits 0.5 1 hr/ton maize milling GMP/HACCP

Storage

Transportation

Wholesale

Retail city <name> Feb May maize flour 60 4 months

13 If one stage in the FSC has two different features, another row should be inserted. E.g. if in the same FSC both crib storage and warehouse storage exist. 14 Village/town where the FSC stage is located. 15Timing of the stage of the FSC. 16 “final” product produced by stage of the FSC. 17 How long does the process in the FSC stage take / what is the distance (and duration) of transportation.

48

PARAGRAPH II-4:

Checklist of social parameters for observations and interviews in Survey.

• What are the specific roles of men and women in the various operations?

• Are there any differences in the conditions under which women and men participate in the observed activities?

• Are community services in place that supports people’s domestic and care duties?

FSC - OUTPUT II-4 Checklist to address Gender Aspects

Try to find out as much as possible on the involvement of the FSC actors, both men and women, in their respective FSC activities. This information will be key to analyse social and gender related causes for food losses and identify socially acceptable solutions.

Division of labour

• Which activities along the FSC do women predominantly do, which ones do men do? • How these activities are related/affect women’s and men’s roles in other productive and

domestic activities? • Consider/document/observe the involvement and role of men and women in:

____ production ____ harvesting ____ postharvest handling ____ storage ____ transport ____ processing ____ marketing (wholesale) ____ marketing (retail)

Types and control of assets

Consider/document/inquire about the ownership/control of men and women in: • How well are the FSC actors prepared and equipped to participate in the respective FSC

activity? • Is the equipment appropriate and used adequately? • Under which conditions do the FSC actors pursue their respective activities? • Do women and men have equal access to assets: Natural resource capital: land, water, trees, livestock, genetic resources, soil fertility Physical capital: livestock, agricultural and business equipment, crop drying and stor-

age structures, postharvest and food processing tools/supplies, labor saving technolo-gies, houses, consumer durables, jewelry, vehicles and transportation, water supply and sanitation facilities, and communications equipment, mobile phones

Human capital: education, skills, knowledge, information, health, nutrition; (these are embodied in the labor of individuals)

Financial capital: money, savings, credit, and inflows (state transfers and remittances) Social capital: membership in organizations and groups, social and profession net-

works, mobility freedom Political capital: citizenship, enfranchisement, and effective participation in govern-

ance Empower-ment

Consider/document the ability and willingness of men and women to make decisions and changes regarding:

• production activities (what to plant or produce, methods, tools, investments, work burden, etc.)

• harvesting/postharvest activities (timing, tools, investments, etc.) • how to add value to foods (via processing, packaging, transformation, etc.) • how to transport produce from the farm to the market • how and where to sell (buyers, prices, locations, marketing options, etc.)

49

OUTPUT II-4: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – SOCIAL STRUCTURES

FSC STEPS

Involvement of Women Involvement of Men Who is mainly in-

volved: women, men, chil-

dren

Organization level of FSC actors18

Gender / social patterns Observations and remarks that explain the chosen

qualifiers and/or give additional information

Girls Adult women Boys Adult men

Qualifier19 Qualifier Qualifier Qualifier

Primary production 3 Men Individual Men are in charge of land preparation, fertilizers and

pesticides application. Limited technology available.

Harvest 2 2 2 Women Household level

Women dominate weeding and harvesting. Children also participate. The qualifier is 2 due to the scarce in-puts, labor intensive work, and additional work burden due to child care and domestic loads.

Post-harvest, handling 1 3 Women

and men Household level

Both women and men are involved. Women mainly in-volved in immediate processing as milling, done man-ually and with scarce technology. This leads to a sig-nificant loss risk. When technology is available, men are more often involved. Advisory services are scarce, and women are excluded.

Storage 2 2 Women and men Household level

Both women and men are involved. Limited equip-ment and poor hygienic management. Women prefer hermetic bags that allow an easier access, while men prefer silos; these are more expensive and increases HH investment.

Transportation 3 Men Individual Male dominated stage because of the limited involve-ment of women in the manual work of loading/offload-ing

Market sales 2 Women Individual Traditionally dominated by women at local markets; they compete with each other and are not organized. Limited information on markets.

18 f.i. Individual/Household level/Cooperative 19 Qualify the equipment, conditions, access to services and training, 4: excellent, 3: good, 2: moderately good, 1: bad.

50

FSC STEPS

Involvement of Women Involvement of Men Who is mainly in-

volved: women, men, chil-

dren

Organization level of FSC actors18

Gender / social patterns Observations and remarks that explain the chosen

qualifiers and/or give additional information

Girls Adult women Boys Adult men

Qualifier19 Qualifier Qualifier Qualifier

Agro-pro-cessing 2 3 Men Cooperative

Male dominated since the plant for processing is out-side the community and women have mobility re-strictions. Yong women are involved in processing, in lower paid jobs, due to limited training opportunities.

Storage 3 Men Cooperative Dominated by men since this is done through produc-ers organizations where women have a limited in-volvement.

Transportation 2 Men Cooperative

Male dominated stage because of social exclusion of women from long distance driving of commercial ve-hicles. Men have limited access to adequate transports because of budget limitations.

Wholesale 3 Men Cooperative Dominated by men who deal with buyers at this level

Retail 2 2 Women and men Individual

Traditionally dominated by women in local markets. Markets outside the community are lead by men. Women are also involved as employees

Recommendations to address social/gender issues in food loss reduction: 1. Focus where women are mainly involved 2. Identify social norms and traditions that limit women’s participation 3. Identify men’s roles that might increase women’s opportunities 4. As mentioned in the table, identify training opportunities, equipment and infrastructure gaps, services and inputs that might reach women to

reduce food losses. 5. Identify possibilities to reduce women’s work burden, increase women’s involvement in producers organizations to benefit from services and

facilities, and increase women’s voice and involvement in decision making.

51

OUTPUT II-5: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – ECONOMICS – MAIZE FLOUR

FSC stage Main products

Cost of operation USD/kg

Cost USD/kg final

product

Cumulative Cost

USD/kg

Value USD/kg final

product

Value-added / Margins USD/kg

Remarks

Primary production Maize cobs 0.50 1.00 0.50

Harvest Maize cobs 0.10 0.20 1.20 1.50 0.30

Post-harvest handling Maize grain 0.20 0.36 1.56 1.80 0.24

Storage Maize grain 0.10 0.18 1.74

Transportation Maize grain 0.10 0.18 1.92

Market sales Maize grain 0.05 0.09 2.01 2.70 0.69

Agro-pro-cessing Maize flour 0.25 0.25 2.26

Storage Maize flour 0.10 0.10 2.36

Transportation Maize flour 0.10 0.10 2.46

Wholesale Maize flour 0.05 0.05 2.51 3.50 0.99

Retail Maize flour 0.05 0.05 2.56 3.80 1.24

NB.: 100 kg maize cob = 55 kg maize grain = 50 kg maize flour

52

OUTPUT II-6a: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FSC – ENVIRONMENT PRODUCTION Quantity Unit

Tools, Equipment, Facilities

Tractor, Tiller Pen, Sty Irrigation system Vessel, Canoe Fishing nets

Materials, Chemicals

Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous (P2O5), Potassium (K2O) kg/ton Insecticides, Herbicides, Fungicides kg/ton Farm manure, Crop residues kg/ton Animal feed, Fish feed kg/ton

Energy Diesel, gas, electricity l,m3,kWh Animal traction

Water Irrigation per ton harvested product m3/ton Land Planted per ton harvested product ha/ton

STORAGE Quantity Unit

Shed, Silo, Warehouse m3 Airconditioning, Refrigeration system

Materials, Chemicals

Storage pesticides kg/ton Packaging

Energy Electricity kWh Solar energy

TRANSPORTATION Quantity Unit

Tools, Equipment, Facilities

Truck, Van, Bike Airconditioning, Refrigeration system

Energy Diesel, Petrol ltr PROCESSING Quantity Unit

Tools, Equipment, Facilities

Factory, shed Dryer, Mill, Boiler, Mixer, Fermenter, Thresher, Press Engine, Electromotor

Materials, Chemicals

Preservatives, other additives kg/ton Packaging

Energy Diesel, gas, electricity l,m3,kWh Solar energy Fuel wood, biomass kg/ton

Water Cleaning water, Process water m3/ton WHOLESALE, RETAIL Quantity Unit

Tools, Equipment, Facilities

Market stalls m2 Store, Ripening chamber, Cold chamber m3 Ice factory

Energy Electricity kWh

53

OUTPUT II-6b: FACTORS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Factors Description Details (example of rice production)

Type of production system flooded, perennial, agro-forestry, aquaculture Flooded rice system

Land preparation practices tillage, biomass burning Burning of straws in the field, conven-tional tillage, manure from livestock

Fishing grounds coastal, deep sea, pelagic, demersal, lake, river

Soil quality and land degra-dation nutrients, erosion Issues with soil erosion

Water regime quality, scarcity, contamination Irrigated - intermittently flooded, water scarcity has been reported

Ecosystem impacts deforestation, land degradation, over-exploitation, loss of biodiver-sity

Rice field after deforestation, crop diver-sification is not promoted

Sources of GHG emissions non-energy related: methane, de-graded soils; energy-related: chemical fertilizers, mechanical equipment

Methane from flooded period, and ma-nure left in the field during dry season; energy emissions from irrigation system

Climatic factors temperature, rainfall variability, drought

Dry seasons have been prolonged, in-creased extreme events

Utilization of residues in the supply chain destination, purpose Rice husks from the production is utilized

as biofuel for the milling process

Re-use of food losses destination, purpose Rice losses are left in the field; some is utilized as animal feed

54

OUTPUT II-7: FOOD LOSS RISK FACTORS

FL = parameter a × variable x. FL transport (%loss) = a (%loss/hour) × x (hours of transport)

Variable Unit Parameter: Relation to

food losses - contributing to low losses

Value of variable (observed in the

case study)

Crop variety/ Fish/ Animal race Name Resistant variety / race

Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Y/N Yes Y

Rainfall during Production mm Optimum range 23

Production supply/ demand ratio Ratio < 1

Rainfall during Postharvest phase mm Low rainfall

Postharvest technology L/M/H High

POs / Coops Y/N Yes

Processing technology L/M/H High

Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) Y/N Yes

Packaging materials and facilities L/M/H High

Cold chains Y/N Yes

Transport duration Hour Low duration 2½

Market information L/M/H High

Price incentive for quality Y/N Yes

Knowledge of FSC actors L/M/H High

Consumer access to food product L/M/H High

Legend: Y/N = yes / no; L/M/H = low / medium / high.

55

OUTPUT III-8a: QUALITY SCORING OF FOOD PRODUCTS

PRODUCT: Mango Quality score Description of the quality %age reduction

of market value

0 completely rotten 100

1 skin break extended to the flesh, fungal decay, highly infested, putrid 100

2

3 over-ripe, spongy, off-smell 60

4

5 20% soft spots, 3+ spots skin damage 40

6

7 1-2 spots of skin damage, 10% discoloured 15

8

9 mature or ripe, homogeneity of colour, firm. 0

10

OUTPUT III-8b: QUALITY ANALYSIS OF SAMPLED UNITS - FRUIT

Unit evaluated

Overall quality score

Type of damage (deterioration) if any Potential cause and symptoms

1 8 Physical Not appropriate pruning, some scratches are evident

2 9 N.A. Excellent quality

3 7 Physiological Low Relative Humidity in storage – Shriveling in some areas are starting to be observed

4 6 Biological Latent pathogen from field – With ripening the repro-duction of the fungus has initiated

5 7 Physiological / Biological Excess heat during storage and latent pathogen from field

6 6 Physical Mishandling, evident hit in one side of the product

7 9 N.A. Excellent quality

8 5 Biological Latent pathogen from field – Evident fungus starting

9 8 Physiological Water loss due to low R.H.

REPORT: Average 7.4. At this point of the handling chain a latent pathogen from the field and low R.H. ap-peared the main factors of quality deterioration

56

OUTPUT III-9: PRESENTATION OF LOAD TRACKING AND SAMPLING RESULTS

A Product maize

B Event storage

C Duration of the event 2 weeks

D Location village

Before the event Experimental Unit Weight of unit Nr of units Total weight

E Load traditional store 1620 kg 1 1620 kg

F 1st-stage sample bag 81 kg 5 405 kg

G 2nd-stage sample scoop 1 kg 3x5 15 kg

Value (score / %) Observations / Causes

H Sample size 2nd-stage 15 kg

I Average quality score (0 – 10) 7.3

J %age unfit (< 2) 5%

K %age low quality (2-6) 7%

After the event Experimental Unit Weight of unit Nr of units Total weight

L Load traditional store 1580 kg 1 1580 kg

M 1st-stage sample bag 79 kg 5 395 kg

N 2nd-stage sample scoop 1 kg 3x5 15 kg

Value (score / %) Observations / Causes

O Sample size 2nd-stage 15 kg

P Average quality score (0 – 10) 6.8

Q %age unfit (< 2) 6%

R %age low quality (2-6) 9%

Quantity loss Value (%) Observations / Causes

S %age lost (E-L)/E 2.5% Rodents, insects. Drying

Quality loss Value (%) Observations / Causes

T %age lost (Q-J) 1%

U %age quality reduction (R-K) 2%

57

Paragraph III-9: Load tracking when the quantity of product is reducing

Load tracking at a wholesale market: 20 tons of bananas, during 7 days

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n

day Sales ton

Price $/kg

Remain ton quality b x e

weighed average quality

f / d

quality reduction

e - g

quality % < 2 (lost)

quantitative loss d x i ton

b – j ton

b x c $

Initial value

$ c x d

economic loss

$ m - l

0 0.0 2.00 20.0 8.3 7.2 1.1 1% 0.20 40,000 8,868

1 5.0 2.00 15.0 8.3 41.5 1% 0.15 10,000

2 2.5 2.00 12.5 8.1 20.3 2% 0.25 5,000

3 2.0 1.80 10.5 7.5 15.0 2% 0.21 3,600

4 3.0 1.60 7.5 7.0 21.0 2% 0.15 4,800

5 1.5 1.40 6.0 6.5 9.8 4% 0.24 2,100

6 2.0 1.40 4.0 6.5 13.0 5% 0.20 2,800

7 1.0 1.20 3.0 6.0 6.0 8% 0.24 1,200

remain 3.0 1.20 6.0 18.0 1,632

SUM 20.0 144.5 1.64 31,132

13% (1.1/8.3) 8%

(1.64/20) 1.36

(3.0-1.64) 22%

(n/m)

NB.: This model doesn’t take into account price fluctuations independent of the quality.

58

OUTPUT III-10: SUMMARY RESULT MATRIX OF FOOD LOSSES

FSC stage/

process

Type of loss

Qn./Ql.

%age lost in this pro-

cess Quant

%age of the product that

incurred qual-ity loss in this

process

%age of product that goes through

this stage

%age loss in the FSC

Cause of loss/ Reason for low

loss

Reduced market value

CLP / LLP

Destination of food loss

Impact/ FSC ac-tors affected

(men / women)

Loss percep-tion of

FSC actors (men / women)

Suggested solutions

storage

QN 12% 75% 9% Fungus CLP garbage income concerned

QL 40% 75% 30% Discolouration 30% CLP consumed income don’t care

retail QN 0.2% 100% 0.2% Good and clean market facility n/a LLP n/a n/a n/a n/a

59

OUTPUT IV-1: CAUSE FINDING DIAGRAM

1. Food loss assessment methods have revealed a batch of food products containing losses or product of low quality. 2. Identify and describe the symptoms that lead to this quantitative / quality loss. 3. Verify the possible causes by consultation of experts and literature, and by on-site investiga-tion. 4. Identify the real cause of the low quality and subsequent food loss.

5. Find the underlying reason for the cause, why the problem hasn’t been solved yet.

- Fungus brought in from the field.

- Infestation during drying or storage from: -drier, -store, -bags, -other batch.

- Improper drying. - Humid and non-

ventilated storage. - Storage duration

too long.

EXPERTS/ FSC ACTORS LITERATURE

TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE SKILLS

INVESTMENT CLIMATE

LEGISLATION POLICY

UNDER-DEVELOP-MENT

CULTURE/ GENDER

Ownership and maintenance of

community store. Management of

marketing.

20% covered with fungi

PHYSICAL CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL NON-COMPLIANCE

PHYSIOLOGICAL NO SYMPTOM INVISIBLE

INVESTIGATION

TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE SKILLS/ PRACTICES

- Humid and non-ventilated storage.

- Storage duration too long.

SCREENING SAMPLING SURVEY Maize losses at stor-age in community

CLIMATE CHANGE

60

OUTPUT IV-2a: BUDGET CALCULATION FOR RIPENING CHAMBER TO REDUCE BANANA LOSSES AT THE WHOLESALE MARKET

item value unit calculation

a Production of dessert banana 40,000 ton/year

b Value of banana 240 $/ton

c Loss rate 20 %

d Anticipated loss reduction 50 %

e Cost of 1 ripening chamber 80,000 $

f Depreciation 10 years

g Yearly costs of investment 8,000 $/year e / f

h Yearly costs of operation 30,000 $/year

i Total yearly costs of 1 chamber 38,000 $/year g + h

ia Capacity of 1 ripening chamber 20 ton

ib number of loads per year 72 /year (5 days/load)

ic Yearly throughput of 1 chamber 1440 ton/year ia × ib

j Client costs per ton product 26 $/ton i / ic

k Food loss 8,000 ton/year c × a

l Economic loss 1,920,000 $/year k × b

m Loss reduction 4,000 ton/year k × d

n Loss reduction savings 960,000 $/year m × b

o Total client costs 1,056,000 $/year a × j

p Profitability of solution -96,000 $/year n - o In this example, the solution is NOT economically viable. It would break-even if the loss re-duction was 55%.

61

OUTPUT 1V-2b: Assessing social implications of specific food loss solution suggestions

Example of a suggested solution: Dissemination of post-harvest technologies

(How) Does the suggested solution … Description of the potential impact

Gender dimension of the impact (how women and men may be affected dif-ferently)

Suggestions to mitigate (gender) nega-tive impacts

1. …impact the employ-ment situation of FSC ac-tors?

Technologies might replace labor forces, which could lead to lay-offs and lost in-come of FSC actors.

Women might be affected predominantly by lay-offs.

Make sure the potential benefits to post-harvest loss reduction are not overshad-owed by lost income due to potential lay-offs.

2. … increase or reduce the workload of FSC actors?

Technologies have the potential to reduce work burden.

Reduced work burden could be of great benefit overall to women.

Identify the technologies that have the po-tential to reduce women’s work burden and - if possible - favor these.

3. …raise or increase the need for training to apply solutions?

New technologies will most probably raise the need for training.

Women might be affected most, since they usually have less access to education and training.

Make sure the introduction of new tech-nologies goes hand in hand with training offers. Make sure to include women in the trainings.

4. …distribute benefits to the FSC actors? (income access and control)

The introduction of new technologies might increase household incomes due to higher production quantities or reduced losses. Control over these higher incomes might not be distributed equally amongst the FSC actors and between women and men.

Women often have less control over household incomes.

Make sure, the benefits are distributed equally amongst the FSC actors. Make sure women get the opportunity to benefit from higher income possibilities and that control over earned income is with them.

5. …require a degree of or-ganization of the FSC ac-tors (membership in pro-ducer organizations/coop-eratives etc.)?

Certain technologies might only be acces-sible through membership of an organiza-tion.

Women have less access to organization and cooperation memberships and there-fore might not be able to access the im-proved technologies.

Make sure to cooperate with organiza-tions that have female members. Support women’s membership in cooperations and organizations, increase their partici-pation at the decision-making-level.

62

(How) Does the suggested solution … Description of the potential impact

Gender dimension of the impact (how women and men may be affected dif-ferently)

Suggestions to mitigate (gender) nega-tive impacts

6. …impact dynamics of power in the FSC? (WHO has ownership of solu-tions?)

As practices improve and formerly man-ual activities become automatized, own-ership might move from one group to an-other.

Often men take over activities that were formerly done manually and by women and now involve more advanced techno-logical aspects. This might lead to trans-ferred ownership from women to men, of both the work and the income generated from it.

Make sure women have equal access to newly introduced technologies and get appropriate training to use these. Make sure technologies are appropriate for the use by women.

7….take into consideration mobility restrictions of FSC actors?

It is possible that training necessary to implement/use the new technologies takes place outside the community. Transportation might be expensive/un-safe/not available.

Women might not be able to attend train-ing that requires travelling, because of mobility restrictions due to financial or safety reasons, or because they might not be allowed to travel outside of their com-munity.

Make sure training is accessible also for women, if it is not possible to have train-ing inside the community, consider providing safe transportation.

8. …coincide with cultural and social norms and will be culturally and socially acceptable?

Some technologies or new practices might be considered as not suitable for some FSC actors, due to social and cul-tural norms.

Especially women might be excluded from certain technologies, because they might not be socially and culturally ac-ceptable for them.

Be aware of social and cultural norms, be sure suggested solutions do not coincide with them, especially when they are re-sulting in an exclusion of women. Con-sider working with men in order to slowly alter social and cultural norms to become more gender equal.

9. …cause for some actors’ exclusion from the FSC ac-tivities?

Due to the above mentioned reasons, ac-tors might suffer from exclusion after the introduction of the new technologies.

Women might be affected disproportion-ately by exclusion from FSC activities.

Make sure proposed solutions are accessi-ble for all FSC actors.

63

OUTPUT IV-3: SUMMARY TABLE OF FOOD LOSSES, CAUSES AND SOLUTIONS - FISH

Critical Loss Point

Magnitude of losses in the FSC Cause of loss

Intervention to reduce losses

Loss reduction Cost of

intervention (USD)

Economic im-plications

Social im-plications

Food secu-rity implica-

tions

Environmental and climate

change implica-tions

Policy implica-tions

%age Weight USD %age USD

Small town retail

market 30 3,000 kg 10,000

Unpro-tected at

high tem-perature

Cold chain: ice block machine

and cooler boxes

80 8,000 2,000

Economic loss reduced from

10,000 to 4,000, or from 30% to 12%

20% of poorest fish

mongers cannot buy

the ice.

Higher in-come and

more nutri-tious food

available for x households

Reduced pollu-tion from spoilt fish. Increased energy use to

make ice blocks.

Need to provide subsidy or

credit on ice block supply.

64

ANNEX 3 Semi-structured interviews Semi-structured interviews (SSI) are conducted with a fairly open framework which allow for focused, conversational, two-way communication. They can be used both to give and receive information. Unlike the questionnaire framework, where detailed questions are formulating ahead of time, semi-structured interviewing starts with more general questions or topics. Rele-vant topics are initially identified and the possible relationship between these topics and the other issues become the basis for more specific questions which do not need to be prepared in advance. The majority of questions are created during the interview, allowing both the inter-viewer and the person being interviewed the flexibility to probe for details or discuss issues.

The interview or discussion is normally conducted with an individual or group of people who are knowledgeable about the topic of interest. The knowledgeable people are typically farmers/ fishers, processors, traders and community leaders, extension workers, etc. SSIs are particularly useful for interviewing those who incur losses in order to help understand causes and effects. Equally, interviewing those who do not incur losses helps understand how losses can be avoided or reduced. Usually, an SSI is guided by a checklist of key issues, different for different FSC actors being interviewed, and during the SSI someone in the team takes notes to record the information generated. It is essential that the team beforehand knows what information and results it would like to obtain from each SSI for each (group of) actor(s) in the FSC.

A few things to remember when using SSIs are: Time value: The team should know the value of time. For example, the team should always be punctual for meetings and interviews and not keep people waiting or plan to have an interview when they are very busy with their day-to-day activities. An interview or meeting is best kept to less than two hours because people may grow tired or not be able to spend a long time away from their daily activities. Be aware that men and women may have different time availability.

Interview setting: An interview or meeting is best conducted somewhere convenient for the people concerned, and the location can be chosen in discussion with the local community. When meeting or interviewing women, be sure you do not compromise them, it may be necessary to invite a ‘chaperon’ from the community when the team members are only men.

Awareness of potential biases: There are many different biases to be aware of when conduct-ing an assessment. People interviewed may have their own biases and may not necessarily co-operate fully. Therefore, cross-checking or triangulation of data is required. There can be a tendency for fieldwork to take place in locations that are easily accessible. Such locations may not be representative of the true picture. These may also be locations where people have expe-rienced a lot of researchers, leading to what is called “research fatigue”. There can also be a gender bias if only men or women are interviewed; again the true picture of losses may not emerge.

Note-taking techniques: Record the notes of interviews and meetings in a careful and discreet manner. Notes from interviews and meetings will help capture the key information and help the team to remember the important issues. Note-taking is not always easy as some people may be suspicious of you writing down everything that they say. Overcoming the suspicion may

require a level of trust that has not been established if the team is new to the community. If in doubt, always ask if it is okay for someone to take notes. If this is not possible, then the team should meet as soon as possible after the meeting and have a note-taking session to capture as much information as possible.

65

Politeness: Always be polite and friendly with the community in order to create a friendly atmosphere. This will greatly facilitate the assessment process and any follow-on work with the community.

Make a pleasant introduction: Let respondents know what the purpose of the PHFLA is. Provide as much information as possible about the loss assessment initiative. The team can narrate success stories, if any, of operators who were in similar situations but are now better-off. Let respondents know that the information they will provide will not be used against their interest, e.g. for revenue collection purposes.

Create a relaxed atmosphere and probe: Try to create a friendly and relaxed atmosphere for the interview or meeting. The PHFLA team has to make sure that they probe for detailed infor-mation.

Questions: Open-ended questions are useful, such as “Tell me about ...”, “Can you explain more about that?”, and some arise naturally during the interview “You said a moment ago ... can you tell me more?”. Participants should be allowed to ask their own questions to the team.

Thank respondents for their assistance: Do not forget to thank respondents for their time and cooperation. Failure to do so may be perceived as a lack of appreciation for their involvement.

Afterwards: The team should consult among themselves to identify others to interview and fix appointments for the interviews. As a useful guide to this process, an FD of activities at the site can be developed, one that shows the operations identified by the respondents and where losses are likely to occur.

66

Dos and don’ts of loss assessment fieldwork

Don’ts Dos

Waste people’s time Find about taboos and norms (e.g. be able

to detect and avoid sensitive situations, which may undermine trust)

Act in a superior way to the community Assure producers of the confidentiality of

the information (not to be used against them, e.g. for tax collection)

Violate taboos and norms Stimulate producers to talk

Demand appreciation Speak clearly

Use language that community members may find hard to understand

Provide facts and information

Interrupt, blame Be neutral and objective

Raise people’s expectations Build up a dialogue

Side with opinion leaders or agitate Assist producers to evaluate

Manipulate or create needs Be patient

Be pompous Be creative, adaptable and innovative

Discourage questions Cross-check information

Make things too scientific Listen and be interested

Speak too long Respect producers, their perceptions and their knowledge

Display little enthusiasm in what people say and do

Create an enabling environment for women’s participation, separately from men when pertinent

Reinforce discriminatory practices Use an inclusive language, differentiating between women and men when referring to stakeholders or producers.

Contact and ask questions to both women and men, they might have different points of views, experiences and challenges

67

ANNEX 4

A brief on the food safety and quality dimension of the food loss methodology. This brief provides an explanation for the assessment team, on consideration of food safety related reasons in the food supply chain that lead to loss of food product. It also intends to raise awareness among the team and ensure that food safety as a cause of food losses is not overlooked. In summary the food safety team needs to understand:

The food and likely hazards, reasons for spoilage, condemnation

Government can make a decision based on a non-compliance and resulting in food being taken out of the chain (e.g.) – excess pesticide residue.

Value chain operators running the production, processing of the food – may make a decision to remove food from a chain (spoiled incoming raw material, blown cans)

Survey and situation analysis: A potential factor which can contribute to food losses throughout the value chain, either by reducing (e .g applying GHP for perishable products) or increasing food loss (e .g lack of com-pliance with food safety regulation leading to food withdrawal from the FSC) is applying ef-fective food safety controls. These controls can be applied by either the value chain operators or government officials.

While evaluating the food safety and quality aspect of food losses, we need to recognize that countries are at different stages of development regarding the capacity of their food control system. Here are different scenarios:

i) The country has a well-functioning food control system and the quality and safety con-trol measures are established among the value chain operators. In this case food losses are often minimum.

ii) The country’s food supply chain is not developed to comply with the standards but strict food safety measures and inspections are in place that leads to major food losses due to non-compliance;

iii) The country has a basic food control system with non-existing or minimum inspection and the value chain actors don’t comply with hygiene and safety requirements. This leads to high amount of losses at different points of the chain due to spoilage and contamination.

In summary, the decision made by the national government, industry or private sector to remove food from the value chain due to safety concerns or lack of compliance with stand-ards (private and public, GHP, GAP) could lead to an increase of losses. It is important for the survey team to understand the scenarios and context of the value chain they are assessing. Irrespective of the level of capacity and controls, it is recommended that in the “Survey phase”, the team gather information (gain an understanding) on: level of controls and inspection, testing and any available information on food rejections

by the government;

existing official and voluntary legislation and standards which contribute either by, de-creasing or increasing food loss throughout the FSC;

68

where there is a non-compliance with the required / applied regulation there may be an increase in food losses (government information);

potential food safety issues (most likely or significant hazards), in the selected chain based on the product type, most likely to lead to losses,

what is known about the causes of food loss throughout the chain

capacity by the value chain operators to apply effective controls (GHPs, HACCP) and therefore minimise food loss

In gathering information, team should also consider, where possible, the extent of non-official trade such as informal market20 which plays a crucial role in developing countries in Asia and Africa where food loss is estimated the highest.

Assessing “actual” food losses Another important aspect that should be highlighted for the team as the basis for the cause and solution finding is that food is lost when it goes out of the value chain. Therefore when we are looking for causes, we should investigate the part of the food that is discarded for whatever reason including quality and safety. For instance in Kenya study and the case of the fish value chain, it is indicated that all the fish supply is consumed even those which are not safe for human consumption and there is no loss. This means that the part of food which remains in the food chain, even if contaminated with or without any visible sign, is not considered food loss.

In finding the causes for losses due to food safety reasons, the logical step after the desk study and literature review, is to try and understand from the managers, business actors and govern-ment, the reason why the product is out of chain. AND then if there is a capacity, we can try and trace the cause by testing in the laboratories, checking etc.

Understanding the loss is essential to identify the right solution. If the team identifies recurring losses with major impact on the livelihood of the poor– then there may be a need to investigate further to find a solution– and if resources allows – undertake lab – at the “load tracking” or solution finding stage. However, it is important to know that the aim is not building capacity in food safety at national level, but to identify the safety and quality related causes and finding solutions accordingly

Finally we should consider that a part of the challenge is that not all hazards are visible! We should remember that sometimes the factors that lead to losses in chain cannot easily deter-mined but they could indirectly lead to losses. For example antimicrobial residue in milk affect the coagulation during the process and therefore the low quality yogurt and cheese is thrown out.

20 By informal market we mean where many actors are not licensed and do not pay tax (e.g. street food mar-kets and backyard poultry and pastoralist systems), markets where traditional processing, products and retail prices predominate (e.g. artisanal cheese production), markets which escape effective health and safety regula-tion (most domestic food markets in developing countries).

69

ANNEX 5 FAO DEFINITIONAL FRAMEWORK OF FOOD LOSS - February 2014 1. Food loss (FL) The decrease in quantity or quality of food. 2. Quantitative food loss The decrease in mass of food. 3. Qualitative food loss The decrease of quality attributes of food. 4. Food Any substance, whether processed, semi-processed or raw, which is intended for human consumption, and includes drink, chewing gum and any substance which has been used in the manufacture, preparation or treatment of "food" but does not include cosmetics or tobacco or substances used only as drugs. (Codex Alimentarius Commission, Procedural Manual, 2013) 5. Food plants and animals (FPA) Plants, animals and their derived products for food. 6. Non-food parts of food plants and animals The parts of food plants and animals which are not intended to be consumed by humans. 7. Food supply chain (FSC) The connected series of activities to produce, process, distribute and consume food. Supplementary notes to the definitions • Food loss (FL) in the production and distribution segments of the FSC is mainly caused by the functioning

of the food production and supply system or its institutional and legal framework. • An important part of food loss is called food waste (FW), which refers to the removal from the FSC of food

which is fit for consumption, by choice, or which has been left to spoil or expire as a result of negligence by the actor – predominantly, but not exclusively the final consumer at household level.

• Food waste is not sharply defined. However it is still recognized as a distinct part of food loss, because the underlying reasons, economic framework and motivation of the FSC actors for wasting food are very differ-ent from the unintended food loss, and subsequently the strategies on how to reduce food waste are conceived in a different, targeted manner. Although the term ‘food loss’ encompasses “food waste”, the term ‘food loss and waste’ (FLW) will continue to be used to emphasize the importance and uniqueness of the waste part of food loss.

• Quantitative food loss can also be referred to as physical food loss. It does not include the reduction of mass resulting from food processing operations such as drying, heating, ripening, fermentation. It does however include the removal of food for cosmetic or other market reasons by food processing operations such as grading and sorting.

• The decrease of quality attributes results in the reduction of nutritional value, economic value, food safety and/or consumers’ appreciation: o Nutritional value refers to macro and micro nutrients such as proteins (including essential amino acids),

fats (including essential fatty acids), carbohydrates (including dietary fibres), vitamins, and minerals and trace elements, as well as non-nutrient bioactive compounds found in plant-based foods such as phytochemicals (e.g. flavonoids, phytoestrogens, and tannins, etc.), in a way that it affects the nutritional status and health of the consumer.

o Economic value refers to the price that any supplier in the FSC receives from its buyer, in a way that it affects the revenue of the supplier.

o Food safety refers to the absence, or presence in acceptable levels, of microbiological, chemical or physical hazards in food to prevent risks to the health of the final consumer.

o Consumers’ appreciation refers to the perception of the food by the consumer, with regard to sensorial attributes such as appearance, texture, smell, taste.

• ‘Consumption’ refers to the ingestion of food by the final consumer.

70

• ‘Intended’ refers to the original purpose for the product in the food supply chain, even if certain actors in the FSC may intentionally discard a wholesome part of the product or divert it to a non-food supply chain. Ex-ample: the whole peeled potato is food, even if a french-fry manufacturer disposes of a fraction when slicing the product into uniform sizes. If at the early stages of the supply chain it is not determined, or not yet known, whether a product will be destined for food or not, absolute food losses can be assessed from percentage losses and statistical infor-mation on the fraction of that product which in a specific region and year finally enters a human food market.

• Whether plants, animals and their parts or products are intended for food depends on the FSC, the food system, and its geographical and cultural context.

• Fish21 discards are the portion of total catch which is thrown away or slipped. It comprises the following components:

• Species which are intended to be caught, but get spoilt and rendered unfit for consumption by the act of catching; these discards are food loss.

• Species which are intended to be caught, but do not meet the regulatory or quality standards, such as size; these discards are food loss.

• Species which are not intended to be caught, but which are fit for entering the FSC; these discards are food loss.

• Species which are not intended to be caught, and which are not considered food; these discards are not food loss.

• Non-food parts of FPA are parts which are inedible, or could be edible but in the specific FSC are not destined to be consumed.

• The FSC starts from the moment that: o crops are harvest-mature or suitable for their purpose; o animals are ready for slaughter; o milk has been drawn from the udder; o eggs are laid by the bird; o aquaculture fish is mature in the pond; o wild fish have been caught by the fishing gear.

The end point of the food supply chain is defined by when food is a) consumed; or b) removed from the food supply chain.

21 Fish includes fish, shellfish and cephalopods

71

Scope of work in the Global Initiative on FLW Reduction FPA also include by-products intended for food, from plants and animals produced for non-food purposes.

Example: cotton is grown for a non-food purpose, but the cottonseed is a by-product of which the oil can be used as food; sheep are reared for wool, but at the end of their wool-producing life the sheep are slaugh-tered for food.

FLW includes: • By-products or secondary products that are in principle meant for human consumption, but that in

specific supply chains cannot be transformed; for instance because of technical limitations, or because of lack of access to a market and therefore are discarded or redirected to non-food use.

• Food that is fit to enter the FSC, but intentionally discarded or redirected to non-food use in the pre-harvest phase.

• Food that is harvest-mature and unintentionally getting spoilt in the pre-harvest phase. • Food that is fit to proceed in the FSC, but redirected to non-food use or discarded in the post-harvest

phase of sorting and grading (fruits, fish discards, etc.) without getting spoilt or spilled. • Food that is redirected to animal feed or compost; it is not re-entering a FSC as defined within the

scope of work. FLW does not include:

• Food that is consumed in excess of nutritional requirements. • Food that incurs a decrease of market value due to over-supply or other market forces, and not due to

reduced quality. The scope of work includes:

• Prevention (reduction) of FLW. • Utilization and management of FLW, with regard to redirection as animal feed, compost, biofuel. NB.: It is important to know the alternative use or destination of lost or wasted food, in order to assess the economic loss and the impact on the use of resources when producing this food. If food loss and waste are used for non-food consumption (as animal feed, as biomass), then the economic and environmental impact could be reduced.

The scope of work does not include: • Utilization and management of non-food parts of FPA.

The scope of work is based on major staple products for food security and includes the following subsectors, apart from derived products listed under 7.: a. cereals b. roots and tubers c. fruits and vegetables, plantains, bananas d. oilseeds, pulses, nuts e. meat f. milk and eggs g. fish, including shellfish and cephalopods

The scope of work does not include the following subsectors or products: a. herbs, spices and condiments b. coffee, tea, cocoa c. sugar, honey d. alcoholic beverages e. confectionery products f. wild animals (apart from fish), insects, snails g. wild plants (fruits, vegetables, nuts, mushrooms) h. salt i. drinking water

72

ANNEX 6

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Terms of Reference for Institution / Company

Name

Job Title Case studies to food losses – extent, causes, solutions

Division/Department ESN

Programme/Project Nr. SO40202

Location

Expected Start Date of Assignment Duration: 4 months

Reports to Name: Title:

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF TASK(S) AND OBJECTIVES TO BE ACHIEVED

Background and Justification.

Food losses refer to the decrease in edible food mass throughout the different segments of the supply chain that aims to provide food for human consumption. Food losses take place at production, postharvest, processing, distribution and retail stages in the food supply chain.

Food losses and their prevention have an impact on the environment and climate change, food and nutrition security for poor people, food quality and safety, and economic development. The exact causes of food losses vary throughout the world and are very much dependent on the specific conditions and local situation in a given country. Currently, the magnitude of food losses have been assessed, and most of the causes of food losses have been identified. However, the assessments are extremely rough, and still unknown are the quantifications of food losses per cause, making it difficult to prioritise and decide on interventions, to have the maximum effect.

Improving the efficiency of the food supply chain could help to bring down the cost of food to the consumer and thus increase access, strengthen adapative capacities while ensuring greater post-harvest benefits to the farmers and processors. Given the magnitude of food losses, making profit-able investments in reducing losses could be one way of reducing the cost of food and associated GHG emissions. However, that would require that financial gains from reduced losses do not outweigh their costs. If eventual cost reductions can be translated into price reductions, then the poor consumers stand to benefit in terms of nutrition, food security and livelihoods.

The main objective of this study is a clear view of the weak points of the food supply chains, and the identification of interventions to reduce food losses and improve the FSC efficiency.

The specific objective of this study is the identification of the main causes and indicative quantitative data of food losses in the food supply chain, and the analysis of the measures to reduce food losses on their technical and economic feasibility as well as social acceptability, leading to concrete proposals to implement a food loss reduction programme.

Implementation of the field study.

Being important food products in the country, the subsectors rice, lentils, dairy and fish have been selected of which one or two major supply chains each will be studied, in the state of Andhra Pradesh.

To each subsector, the consultancy company will assign national experts, being subsector specialist (SS), agricultural economist (AE), and rural sociologist (RS) who will work on the assignment together as a team. The consultancy company will work under the direct supervision of the Agro-industry Division (AGS) of FAO, with technical support from the Working Group on Food Losses, administrative and logistical support from the FAO Representative, and in collaboration with on-going field projects and activities in India from FAO, IFAD, WFP and others. The consultancy company will provide the national experts with means to travel, and to compensate for services from local stakeholders and government officials.

CRITERIA: The subsector supply chains to be studied will be selected based on the secondary data review findings and should start from small-scale operations to small and medium scale processors, will produce for human consumption, and have their final outlets in the communities/ villages, urban areas, the region or international markets. If possible, the selected chains are included in an ongoing support programme for the subsector.

The consultancy company will use the methodology developed for these studies by FAO.

73

Specific activities and main responsibilities.

Under the operational and technical supervision of the Agro-Industry Officer of AGS or the Products, Trade and Marketing Service (FIPM) of FAO, Rome, and in close collaboration with the FAO Country Representation, the consultancy company’s experts will work as a team to undertake this assignment. Specific activities to be implemented are listed hereafter. Using the methodology provided by FAO, for each subsector the consultancy company’s experts will:

A. SUPPLY CHAIN SELECTION AND STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.

1. Assemble and review technical information/ literature, as well as recent economic information.

2. Identify existing work in the area and review its completeness and gaps if any.

3. Identify what additional and/or new information the survey and analysis will provide on food losses.

4. Select the food products to include in the study and provide the reasons for this selection.

5. Select the specific supply chain and the geographical area where to undertake the study; provide the reasons for this selection.

6. Based on the above information and knowledge of the supply chain, identify 3-4 steps in the chain where food losses are likely to be high or have the highest impact.

7. Identify indicators to assess or measure the impact of food losses on the (local) economy, on the environment, and on (local) social systems.

8. Develop a detailed approach including a (semi)-structured tool for primary food loss data collection, identify how data will be collated and analysed; identify study scope and limitations, and any potential gaps.

The study implementation plan will be submitted within one week of signature of contract for review and approval by AGS or FIP of FAO.

B. PRIMARY DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTION.

9. Make logistical arrangements and the required contacts (with stakeholders, chain actors, authorities, rural sociologists, etc.) to undertake the study.

10. Visit the FSC activities and actors, especially the chain areas identified under 6 above, to make observations and have consultations and partici-patory field assessments to obtain the information as stipulated in the attached ‘Outline of the Report on the Study to the Reduction of Food Losses’.

11. Determine the technical aspects of the various supply chain operations, assess the level of quantitative and qualitative food losses, the frequency of occurrence and identify their causes.

12. Determine the cost of the various supply chain operations, the prices and value-added of raw materials, intermediary and final products.

13. Assess the social aspects and environmental impact of the various supply chain operations.

14. Identify potential interventions to reduce these losses and estimate their cost.

15. Assess the social and environmental impact of the potential interventions to reduce food losses.

C. DATA ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF A FOOD LOSS REDUCTION STRATEGY.

16. Design the proposed interventions in detail, and prioritize them based on a cost benefit analysis.

17. Outline a food loss reduction strategy, including resources and means.

18. Prepare and submit the ‘Report on the Study to the Reduction of <subsector> Food Losses’ with all the findings and conclusions within five weeks after the end of the assignment;

19. Participate in a national seminar with other experts and stakeholders, to discuss the technical, economic, social, climate change and environmen-tal, legal and food security implications, viability and acceptability of the food loss reduction measures for all food supply chains studied in the country, to endorse the final conclusions.

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

- Submission of implementation plan for field survey

- Completion of field survey

- Submission of the 4 Reports on the Study to the Reduction of <subsector> Food Losses

- Participate in a national validation seminar

Required Completion Date:

REQUIRED COMPETENCIES

Academic Qualifications of the national experts.

Agricultural Economist: MSc in agricultural economics/ agri-business.

Subsector Specialist: MSc or BSc in agriculture, food science or marketing.

Rural Sociologist: MSc in Social Science, specialization in Gender, Farmer Cooperatives or related field.

Technical Competencies and Experience Requirements of the national experts.

Agricultural Economist: At least 5 years experience in agricultural research or support services to the agricultural sector.

Subsector Specialist: At least 10 years working experience in production, processing or trade in the subsector.

Rural Sociologist: At least 5 years experience in gender and community research or support services to the agricultural sector.

74

Outline of the Paper on Food Loss Reduction. i. Table of Contents – 1 page. ii. Glossary, Country map – 1 page. 1. THE SUBSECTOR - Introduction and Background.

a Status and importance of the subsector; developments over the last 15 years. – ½ page. DIAGRAM I-1a. TABLE I-1b, I-1c. – 2½ pages.

b Inventory of activities and lessons learnt from past and on-going interventions in subsector losses. – ½ page c The process of policy making and current policy framework or national strategy on subsector losses (if any), and

brief description/ assessment of the level and extent of current implementation. – 1 page. d Relevant institutions and their role in terms of policy, organisational structure, mandate and activities in the

small and medium subsector industry sector. – 1 page. e Overview of the most important FSCs in the subsector, selection of FSC. TABLE I-2a. TABLE I-2b. TABLE I-2c. –

1½ page. Presumed food losses in the selected FSC. TABLE I-3b. – ½ page. 2. THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN - Situation analysis.

a Description of the selected subsector supply chain, its location, an estimate of the quantities of products, and when the case study took place. TABLE II-3a. TABLE II-3b. – 2 pages.

b Description of the existing marketing systems of the selected subsector supply chain, for small-scale producers (formal and informal). – ½ page. FLOW DIAGRAM I-3a. - 1 page.

c FSC actors’ involvement and their benefit, including job creation and income generation; economic data of the FSC; environment-related inputs and factors of the FSC. TABLE II-4. TABLE II-5. TABLE II-6a and b. – 4 pages.

3. THE FOOD LOSSES - Study findings and results. a Description of the FSC: risk factors. TABLE II-7. – 1 page. b Critical Loss Points: type and level of food losses in the selected subsector chains, including both quantitative

and qualitative losses. – 2 pages. TABLE III-8a, 8b. TABLE III-9. – 2 pages. TABLE III-10. – 1 page. c The causes of these losses and identified (potential) loss reduction measures. DIAGRAM IV-1 – 2 pages. d Low Loss Points, and good practices leading to low food losses. – ½ page.

4. THE FOOD LOSS REDUCTION STRATEGY - Conclusions and recommendations. a Impact of food losses in the selected FSC. – 1½ page. b Required inputs and cost-benefit analysis of the food loss reduction measures (for 10 year implementation)

identified at the critical loss points; social implications. TABLE IV-2a. TABLE IV-2b. TABLE IV-3. – 3 pages. c Food loss reduction plan and strategy, investment requirements. – 1 page. d Follow-up action plan/ concept note. – 1 page.

iii. Bibliography/ references. TABLE I-0. – 1 page. Photos (in the text): – 2 pages. TOTAL: 35 PAGES.